Allowed

G.Mythili v. The Commissioner

Madras HC16 Dec 2025WA(MD)/2824/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired temple employee whose gratuity claim had been allowed sought enhancement of interest from 6% to 10% per annum as directed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, relying on Supreme Court orders and Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, modified the interest rate to 10% per annum and allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Interest on gratuity enhanced from 6% to 10% per annum; writ appeal allowed with no costs.

G.Mythili Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.2824 of 2025

¶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.2824 of 2025

G.Mythili

... Appellant

Vs.

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

¶11

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

¶12

3.R.Viswanathan

¶13

4.R.M.Pandi

¶14

5.B.Karuppiah,

¶15

6.N.Gandhi

¶16

7.R.Vedarajan

¶17

8.A.Madhavan

¶18

9.P.Kumaresan

¶19

1/6

¶20

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

¶21

W.A.(MD)No.2824 of 2025

10.S.Maarie

11.R.Dharmarajan

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

¶26

For Appellant : Mr.R.Ramasamy

¶27

For Respondents : Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan, Government Advocate for R1. Mr.S.Ramesh for R2 Mr.K.Thangarajan for R5 to R9

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶30

Heard both sides.

¶31

2.The appellant is a retired temple employee. Seeking payment of

¶32

gratuity, she 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 appellant along with others filed W.P.(MD)No.7486 of 2020. The writ 2/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.A.(MD)No.2824 of 2025

¶36

petition was allowed. However, the learned Single Judge directed that

¶37

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 appellant 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

3/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.A.(MD)No.2824 of 2025

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

To:

¶48

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

¶49

4/6

¶50

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

¶51

W.A.(MD)No.2824 of 2025

¶52

5/6

¶53

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

¶54

W.A.(MD)No.2824 of 2025

¶55

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and R.KALAIMATHI, J.

¶56

ias

¶57

W.A.(MD)No.2824 of 2025

¶58

16.12.2025 (4/4)

¶59

6/6

¶60

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

G.Mythili v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Mythili v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Vedanta Limited Vs Union of India

R.Ayyapillai Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India

G.Gururajan Vs The Commissioner

M.Mathuresan Vs the Commissioner

Sabaratinam Vs the State of Tamil Nadu