Allowed¶59

M.Mathuresan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC16 Dec 2025WA(MD)/188/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal (Madurai) by 33 retired temple employees against 6% interest direction in W.P.(MD)No.3708 of 2020 (order dated 17.03.2021); gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972; Section 7(3A) - RBI long term deposit rate; 10% per annum interest substituted for 6%; reliance on Gagan Bihari Prusty v. Paradip Port Trust, SLP(C) No.20740 of 2022 (Supreme Court); respondents include Commissioner, HR&CE Administration and Joint Commissioner/EO, Arulmigu Ramanathasamy Thirukoil, Rameswaram; writ appeal allowed, no costs; decided 16.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; the learned Single Judge's order modified so that interest on the gratuity amount is paid at 10% per annum instead of 6%; no costs. ¶59

M.Mathuresan Vs the Commissioner — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal allowed; the learned Single Judge's order modified so that interest on the gratuity amount is paid at 10% per annum instead of 6%; no costs.

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the interest payable on the gratuity amount awarded to the retired temple employee appellants should be 10% per annum instead of the 6% per annum directed by the learned Single Judge.

¶52

Court's answer

The order of the learned Single Judge is modified: instead of 6%, the interest rate payable to the appellants on the gratuity amount is 10% per annum; the writ appeal is allowed on these terms, with no costs.

¶58-59

Ratio / Principle

Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act provides that the interest rate is the one awarded for long term deposits by the Reserve Bank of India as per the notification of the Central Government, and the RBI has directed 10% for long term deposits; hence a 10% rate is just and proper for temple employees who are paid a pittance of salary.

¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), Division Bench of G.R. Swaminathan and R. Kalaimathi, JJ.: Retired temple employees whose gratuity claim was allowed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (amount duly deposited by the temple management) had obtained W.P.(MD)No.3708 of 2020 to implement that order; the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition but directed interest at 6% per annum. Allowing the writ appeal under Clause XV of Letters Patent, the Division Bench held that for temple employees paid a pittance of salary, 10% interest is just and proper: Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act ties the rate to the rate awarded for long term deposits by the Reserve Bank of India as per Central Government notification, and the RBI has directed 10% for long term deposits; this accords with the recent Supreme Court order in S.L.P.(C) No.20740 of 2022 (Gagan Bihari Prusty v. Paradip Port Trust) sustaining a 10% award. Held: the Single Judge's order modified; interest enhanced from 6% to 10% per annum; writ appeal allowed on these terms; no costs.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.188 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.188 of 2022

¶7

1.M.Mathuresan

¶8

2.K.Thillai marimuthu

¶9

3.R.Veeramuthukumar

¶10

4.R.Velayutham

¶11

5.P.Kuppamuthu

¶12

5.S.Rajendran

¶13

7.R.Kalyanaraman

¶14

8.G.Lakshmi

¶15

9.S.Kalimuthammal

¶16

10.K.Subbammal

¶17

11.G.Indirani

¶18

12.T.Arumugam

¶19

13.V.Nagammal

¶20

14.R.Ramayee

¶21

15.V.Boomadevi

¶22

16.G.Panchavarnam

¶23

17.T.Namburajan

¶24

1/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.A.(MD)No.188 of 2022

¶27

18.N.Arumugam 19.K.Suburamanian 20.A.Rajendran 21.A.Muniyandi 22.T.Renuka 23.P.Maruthurajan 24.S.Lalitha @ Srividya 25.K.Santhosh 26.M.Pandi 27.M.Karuppayee 28.C.Udayanatchi 29.M.Karuppayee 30.K.Marithaai 31.K.Marithaai 32.M.Muniyandi 33.Vetri Selvi

¶28

... Appellants

¶29

Vs.

¶30

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Adminstration,

¶31

Nungampakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 006. 2.The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ramanathasamy Thirukoil, Rameswaram. 3.S.Ramasamy

¶32

2/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.A.(MD)No.188 of 2022

¶35

4.T.Namburajan

¶36

5.N.Nagalakshmi

¶37

6.K.Kalimuthammal 7.G.Gururajan

8.G.Ramanathan

9.R.Mariammal

... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.3708 of 2020 dated 17.03.2021 on the file of this Court.

¶42

For Appellants : Mr.R.Ramasamy

¶43

For Respondents : Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan, Government Advocate for R1. Mr.S.Ramesh for R2 Mr.K.Thangarajan for R3 to R9

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶46

Heard both sides.

¶47

2.The appellants are retired temple employees. Seeking payment

¶48

of gratuity, they moved the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The claim was allowed and the temple management 3/6

¶49

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

¶50

W.A.(MD)No.188 of 2022

¶51

also had deposited the entire gratuity amount subsequently. In the

¶52

meanwhile, to implement the order of the Controlling Authority, the appellants filed W.P.(MD)No.3708 of 2020. The writ petition was allowed. However, the learned Single Judge directed that the gratuity amount allowed by the authority would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

¶53

3.The learned counsel for the appellants draws our attention to quite a few orders including the recent one passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.20740 of 2022 (Gagan Bihari Prusty Vs. Paradip Port Trust) in which, award of 10% interest has been sustained.

¶54

4.The temple employees are paid pittance of salary. In such cases, it is only just and proper that 10% interest rate is awarded. Our attention is drawn to Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. It states that the interest rate would be the one awarded for long term deposits by Reserve Bank of India as per the notification of the Central Government. It is seen that for long term deposits, the Reserve Bank of India has directed that 10% interest can be awarded.

¶55

4/6

¶56

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

¶57

W.A.(MD)No.188 of 2022

¶58

5.In this view of the matter, we modify the order of the learned

¶59

Single Judge. Instead of 6%, the interest rate to be paid to the appellants would be 10% per annum. The writ appeal is allowed on these terms. No costs.

¶60

(G.R.S. J.,) & (R.K.M. J.,) 16.12.2025

¶61

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶62

To:

¶63

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Adminstration, Nungampakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶64

5/6

¶65

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