Ramakrishnan.M v. The Commissioner Of Palani Municipality

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE M.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner -vsThe Commissioner of Palani Municipality Palani-624 601 Dindigul District ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent i.e. the Commissioner of Palani Municipality, Palani, to make payment of interest towards General Provident Fund amount to the petitioner as already sanctioned by the Director of Local Fund Audit, Chennai, as intimated in Letter O.Mu.No.PaPaa2/15935/2015 dated 07.07.2015 within a specified time frame.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondent :

Mr.L.P.Maurya Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondent - Municipality to make payment of interest towards General Provident Fund amount to the petitioner as already sanctioned by the Director of Local Fund Audit, Chennai, as intimated in the Letter dated 07.07.2015, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, a sum of Rs.36,113/- has been paid by the respondent - Municipality towards interest on account of the belated payment of the provident fund to the petitioner.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent - Municipality would submit that the actual interest amount i.e., Rs.36,113/- due and payable to the petitioner has been paid to him subsequent to the filing of this writ petition and therefore, no amount towards interest is payable by the respondent - Municipality to the petitioner.

4. The above submission of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent - Municipality is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who would submit that a further sum of Rs.44,111/- is still due and payable by the respondent - Municipality to the petitioner.

5. Since the further claim made by the petitioner towards interest is a disputed question of fact, the question of granting the relief as such sought for in this writ petition does not arise. The petitioner will have to necessarily work out his remedies by filing a civil suit.

6. Since the admitted amount payable to the petitioner towards interest on account of the belated payment of the provident fund amount has

been paid by the respondent - Municipality, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the Civil Court with regard to the further claim made by him by filing a civil suit against the respondent - Municipality. No costs.

16.10.2025 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No krk

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

krk 16.10.2025