Madras High CourtWP/664/2022disposed of

S.Krishnamurthy v. The Collector

2023-07-26Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR S.Krishnamurthy .. Petitioner

Versus

1.The Collector Thiruvannamalai District Thiruvannamalai 2.The Tahsildar Chengam Taluk Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District 3.The Special Officer HH 535, Melmudiyanur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Melmudiyanur Village & Post Chengam Taluk Thiruvannamalai District .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to recover the amount as per the Recovery Certificate dated 13.03.2020 issued by the Authority under they Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and pay it to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu For Respondents : Mr.S.Prabhakaran for R1& R2 Government Advocate Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan for R3 Additional Government Pleader 1/4

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the first respondent to recover the amount as per the Recovery Certificate dated 13.03.2020 issued by the Authority under they Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and pay it to the petitioner.

2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite the Order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Vellore in P.G.No.67 of 2016 dated 05.09.2016 to the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.97,806/- as gratuity to the petitioner, the same has not been paid by the third respondent. Since, gratuity was not paid to the petitioner, the petitioner approached the District Collector/First respondent seeking for recovery of the said amount. Thus, seeks a direction from this Court to recover the amount as per the Recovery Certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Vellore on 13.03.2020 under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent submitted that the amount has been withheld due to excess salary has already been paid to the petitioner.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. This 2/4

Court is of the view that merely on the basis that the excess salary has been paid to the petitioner, the gratuity cannot be withheld. Hence, the third respondent is directed to settle the gratuity amount within a period of two months with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 26.07.2023 dhk Internet: Yes/No To 1.The Collector Thiruvannamalai District Thiruvannamalai 2.The Tahsildar Chengam Taluk Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District 3.The Special Officer HH 535, Melmudiyanur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Melmudiyanur Village & Post Chengam Taluk Thiruvannamalai District N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

3/4

dhk WP.No.664 of 2022 26.07.2023 4/4