M.Mathuresan v. The Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI 1.M.Mathuresan 2.K.Thillai marimuthu 3.R.Veeramuthukumar 4.R.Velayutham 5.P.Kuppamuthu 5.S.Rajendran 7.R.Kalyanaraman 8.G.Lakshmi 9.S.Kalimuthammal 10.K.Subbammal 11.G.Indirani 12.T.Arumugam 13.V.Nagammal 14.R.Ramayee 15.V.Boomadevi 16.G.Panchavarnam 17.T.Namburajan 1/6

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 ... Appellants Vs.

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

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

3.S.Ramasamy 2/6

4.T.Namburajan 5.N.Nagalakshmi 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. For Appellants : Mr.R.Ramasamy For Respondents : Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan, Government Advocate for R1.

Mr.S.Ramesh for R2 Mr.K.Thangarajan for R3 to R9

JUDGMENT

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) Heard both sides.

2.The appellants are retired temple employees. Seeking payment of gratuity, they moved the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The claim was allowed and the temple management 3/6

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.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. 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. 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.

4/6

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 would be 10% per annum. The writ appeal is allowed on these terms. No costs.

(G.R.S. J.,) & (R.K.M. J.,) 16.12.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:

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

5/6

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

and R.KALAIMATHI, J.

ias 16.12.2025 (1/4) 6/6