Partly allowed

S.Duraidass v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 Oct 2023WP/9310/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the District Collector and Tahsildar to consider representations regarding unpaid gratuity recovery, issue notice to the employer, and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks under the Revenue Recovery Act.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 and 2 directed to consider representations, issue notice to Respondent 4, and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks.

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

¶1

W.P.No.9310 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

¶6

W.P.No.9310 of 2022

¶7

1 S.Duraidass

¶8

2 K.Srinivasan

¶9

3 P.Kuppan

¶10

4 R.Devan

¶11

5 Muniammal

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

1 The District Collector,

¶15

1st Floor, Main Building, District Collectorate, Dharmapuri-636 705.

¶16

2 The Tahsildar, Palacode, Karagathahalli, Palacode-636 808.

¶17

3 The Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, Salem.

¶18

4 The Managing Director Dharmapuri District Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, Jerthlav Post, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District-636 808. ... Respondents

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

Prayer:

¶22

W.P.No.9310 of 2022

¶23

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein to initiate proceedings under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 against the 4th Respondent herein for recovery of gratuity amount as per order, dated 18.02.2020 and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to disburse the same to the Petitioners herein.

¶24

For Petitioners : Ms.B.Poongkhulali For Respondents : Mr.D.Gopal Government Advocate

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The grievance of the petitioners is that though the 3rd respondent passed orders dated 18.02.2020 directing the 4th respondent / Management to pay gratuity together with interest at 10% per annum to the petitioners and a communication dated 30.09.2020 was also sent to the 1st respondent to initiate action under Revenue Recovery Act, till date no amount is recovered from the 4th respondent. Their representations to the 1st respondent also evoked no response. Therefore, they have filed the present Writ Petition to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take further action against the 4th respondent / Management.

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.9310 of 2022

¶30

2. Gratuity is paid to an employee as part of his / her salary and is considered to be a benefit plan which is designed to help the employee during his/her retirement. Gratuity if not paid, can be recovered as land revenue under Revenue Recovery Act. In the instant case, orders for payment of gratuity along with 10% interest were passed as early as 2020. In the circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioners and the communications sent to them by the 3rd respondent, after giving notice to the 4th respondent and pass appropriate orders both in representations of the petitioners and the communications sent by the 3rd respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

3. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶32

No costs.

¶33

05.10.2023

¶34

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order vum

¶35

Page 3 of 4

¶36

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

W.P.No.9310 of 2022

R. HEMALATHA, J.

vum

1 The District Collector,

¶42

1st Floor, Main Building, District Collectorate, Dharmapuri-636 705.

¶43

2 The Tahsildar, Palacode, Karagathahalli, Palacode-636 808.

¶44

3 The Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, Salem.

W.P.No.9310 of 2022

05.10.2023

Page 4 of 4

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

S.Duraidass v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Duraidass v. The District 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

The Management Vs Thiru.T.Manoharan

M/s.T.Abdul wahid and Co. Vs The Central Board of Trustees

Sujatha Mouli Vs Inspector of Police

K.Kumarasamy Vs The District Collector

V.Sivalingam Vs Managing Director

The Management Vs Deputy Commissioner of Labour