Allowed

S.Krishnamurthy v. The Collector

Madras HC26 Jul 2023WP/664/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the First Respondent to recover a gratuity amount of Rs. 97,806/- as per a recovery certificate issued under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and pay it to the petitioner. The court rejected the Third Respondent's defense of withheld payment due to alleged excess salary.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Third Respondent to pay Rs. 97,806/- as gratuity with 7.5% p.a. interest within two months.

S.Krishnamurthy Vs The Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP.No.664 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

WP.No.664 of 2022

¶7

S.Krishnamurthy .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The Collector Thiruvannamalai District Thiruvannamalai

¶10

2.The Tahsildar Chengam Taluk Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District

¶11

3.The Special Officer HH 535, Melmudiyanur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Melmudiyanur Village & Post Chengam Taluk Thiruvannamalai District .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to recover the amount as per the Recovery Certificate dated 13.03.2020 issued by the Authority under they Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and pay it to the petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu For Respondents : Mr.S.Prabhakaran for R1& R2 Government Advocate

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan for R3 Additional Government Pleader

1/4

WP.No.664 of 2022

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the first respondent to

¶20

recover the amount as per the Recovery Certificate dated 13.03.2020 issued by the Authority under they Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and pay it to the petitioner.

¶21

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite the Order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Vellore in P.G.No.67 of 2016 dated 05.09.2016 to the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.97,806/- as gratuity to the petitioner, the same has not been paid by the third respondent. Since, gratuity was not paid to the petitioner, the petitioner approached the District Collector/First respondent seeking for recovery of the said amount. Thus, seeks a direction from this Court to recover the amount as per the Recovery Certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Vellore on 13.03.2020 under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

¶22

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the third

¶23

respondent submitted that the amount has been withheld due to excess salary has already been paid to the petitioner.

¶24

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. This https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

2/4

¶26

WP.No.664 of 2022

¶27

Court is of the view that merely on the basis that the excess salary has been paid to the petitioner, the gratuity cannot be withheld. Hence, the third respondent is directed to settle the gratuity amount within a period of two months with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶28

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶29

26.07.2023

¶30

dhk Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶31

¶32

1.The Collector Thiruvannamalai District Thiruvannamalai

¶33

2.The Tahsildar Chengam Taluk Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District

¶34

3.The Special Officer HH 535, Melmudiyanur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Melmudiyanur Village & Post Chengam Taluk Thiruvannamalai District

¶35

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3/4

WP.No.664 of 2022

dhk

WP.No.664 of 2022

26.07.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

4/4

S.Krishnamurthy v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Krishnamurthy v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hajee Essa Abba Saits Primary School Vs the Director of Elementary Education

K.Thavamani Vs the Joint Registrar of Coop. Societies

G.Durairaj,Jo .7592 Vs the Managing Director

S.Faiyaz Vs The State of Tamil nadu

T.Raghuraman Vs The Chairman

T.Raghuraman Vs The Chairman