N.Arumugam, v. the District Collector

Madras HC5 Feb 2025WP(MD)/2988/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Payment of Gratuity Act, Section 8, revenue recovery proceedings, writ of mandamus, infructuous writ petition, gratuity disbursement with interest, P.G.No.92/17, Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act / Assistant Commissioner of Labour K.Pudur Madurai, Arulmigu Adaikalam Katha Ayyanar Bathrakaliamman Thirukovil Madapuram, District Collector Madurai, substitution of petitioners W.M.P.(MD) No.26090 of 2024, Madras High Court Madurai Bench, W.P.(MD) No.2988 of 2019, dismissed as infructuous, no costs.

What did the court decide?

On the joint representation of learned counsel on either side, the relief sought for in the writ petition had become infructuous because the amounts claimed in the writ petition had already been paid by the third respondent together with interest. ¶19

N.Arumugam, Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23-24

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondents, particularly the second respondent, to disburse the amount lying to the credit of P.G.No.92/17 and to initiate revenue recovery proceedings through the first respondent against the third respondent under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act (printed in the prayer as '1872') to collect interest for the gratuity amount till the date of payment.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

¶19

Key takeaways

In view of the payment having been made with interest, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous, with no order as to costs.ratio¶23-24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), single Judge (Mummeni Sudheer Kumar, J.), 05.02.2025: Writ petition under Article 226 by the substituted heirs of a deceased employee sought a writ of mandamus directing the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act / Assistant Commissioner of Labour (second respondent) to disburse the amount lying to the credit of P.G.No.92/17 and to initiate revenue recovery proceedings through the District Collector against the temple Executive Officer (third respondent) under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act (year printed in the judgment as '1872') to collect interest till payment. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel on either side jointly represented that the claimed amounts had already been paid by the third respondent together with interest. The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous, without costs. Petitioners 2 to 4 had been substituted on 19.12.2024 in W.M.P.(MD) No.26090 of 2024 following the death of the original first petitioner N.Arumugam.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.2988 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.2988 of 2019

¶7

N.Arumugam (Died) P2.Rajeswari P3.Gayathri P4.Rathna Priya ... Petitioners [P2 to P4 are substituted vide Court order dated 19.12.2024 in W.M.P. (MD) No.26090 of 2024 in W.P.(MD) No.2988 of 2019]

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The District Collector Madurai District Madurai

¶10

2.The Controlling Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act / Assistant Commissioner of Labour Bharathi Ula Road K.Pudur Madurai.No.8

¶11

3.The Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer Arulmigu Adaikalam Katha Ayyanar Bathrakaliamman Thirukovil Madapuram Madurai ... Respondents

¶12

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.(MD) No.2988 of 2019

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents particularly second respondent to disburse the amount which lies to the credit of the P.G.No.92/17 and to initiate revenue recovery proceedings through the first respondent against the third respondent to under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1872 to collect interest for the gratuity amount from the respective dates as fixed by the second respondent for petitioner till the date of payment and disburse the same to the petitioner within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatesh

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2 Dr.C.Guhaseelarupan for R3

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, it is represented by the learned counsel on either side that the relief sought for in this writ petition has now become infructuous as the amounts that are claimed in this writ petition have already been paid by the third respondent together with interest.

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD) No.2988 of 2019

¶23

2. In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed as having

¶24

become infructuous. No costs.

¶25

05.02.2025