Allowed¶44

R.Viswanathan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC16 Dec 2025WA(MD)/189/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gratuity interest enhancement 6% to 10% per annum; retired temple employees; Arulmigu Ramanathasamy Thirukoil, Rameswaram; HR&CE Administration; Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972; Section 7(3A) PGA - RBI long term deposit rate, Central Government notification; Gagan Bihari Prusty vs Paradip Port Trust SLP(C) 20740/2022; W.A.(MD)No.189 of 2022; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; G.R.Swaminathan J and R.Kalaimathi J; writ appeal allowed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed on the terms that the interest payable to the appellants on the gratuity amount stands increased from 6% to 10% per annum, modifying the learned Single Judge's order; no costs. ¶44

R.Viswanathan Vs the Commissioner — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal allowed on the terms that the interest payable to the appellants on the gratuity amount stands increased from 6% to 10% per annum, modifying the learned Single Judge's order; no costs.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the interest at 6% per annum directed by the learned Single Judge on the gratuity amount allowed to the retired temple employees should be enhanced to 10% per annum.

¶37

Court's answer

The interest rate payable to the appellants on the gratuity amount is enhanced: instead of the 6% directed by the learned Single Judge, it shall be 10% per annum.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Temple employees are paid a pittance of salary, and in such cases it is only just and proper that a 10% interest rate is awarded.

¶39

Key takeaways

Under Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the applicable interest rate is the one awarded for long term deposits by the Reserve Bank of India as per the notification of the Central Government.ratio¶39
For long term deposits, the Reserve Bank of India has directed that 10% interest can be awarded.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court, W.A.(MD)No.189 of 2022, decided 16.12.2025) by four retired temple employees against the learned Single Judge's order in W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2020 (dated 17.03.2021), whereby their writ petition to implement the Controlling Authority's gratuity order under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was allowed but with interest capped at 6% per annum despite the temple having deposited the entire gratuity amount. The Division Bench (G.R.Swaminathan, J.) held that as temple employees are paid a pittance of salary, it is just and proper to award 10% interest; Section 7(3A) of the Act pegs the rate to the long term deposit rate notified by the Central Government on the Reserve Bank of India's direction, and the RBI has directed 10% for long term deposits; reliance was also placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in S.L.P.(C) No.20740 of 2022 (Gagan Bihari Prusty Vs. Paradip Port Trust) sustaining 10% interest. The writ appeal was allowed on these terms with no costs.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.189 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.189 of 2022

¶7

1.R.Viswanathan

¶8

2.R.M.Pandi

¶9

3.S.Maarie

¶10

4.R.Dharmarajan ... Appellants

¶11

Vs.

¶12

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

¶13

Nungampakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶14

2.The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ramanathasamy Thirukoil, Rameswaram.

¶15

3.B.Karuppiah,

¶16

4.N.Gandhi

¶17

5.R.Vedarajan

¶18

6.A.Madhavan

¶19

7.G.Mythili

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

W.A.(MD)No.189 of 2022

¶23

8.P.Kumaresan

¶24

... Respondents

¶25

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.7486 of 2020 dated 17.03.2021 on the file of this Court.

¶26

For Appellants : Mr.R.Ramasamy

¶27

For Respondents : Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan, Government Advocate for R1. Mr.S.Ramesh for R2 Mr.K.Thangarajan for R3 to R8

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶30

Heard both sides.

¶31

2.The appellants are retired temple employees. Seeking payment

¶32

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

¶33

also had deposited the entire gratuity amount subsequently. In the meanwhile, to implement the order of the Controlling Authority, the appellants filed W.P.(MD)No.7486 of 2020. The writ petition was

¶34

2/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.A.(MD)No.189 of 2022

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

5.In this view of the matter, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge. Instead of 6%, the interest rate to be paid to the appellants

¶41

3/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.A.(MD)No.189 of 2022

¶44

would be 10% per annum. The writ appeal is allowed on these terms.

¶45

No costs.