SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 12683

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
M.KRISHNAMOORTHY – Appellant
Versus
the Managing Director – Respondent



##PAGE1##

WP No. 1950 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

WP No. 1950 of 2026

and

WMP Nos.2043 and 2044 of 2026

M.Krishnamoorthy

S/o.Munusamy,

No.61, Appanu Vattam,

Vaniyambadi, Kethandapatti Village,

Thirupattur District-635 815

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Managing Director

Tirupattur Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd.,

Kethandapatti, Thirupattur District-635 815

2. The Commissioner Sugar Corporation,

No.690, Anna Salai,

Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.

__________

Page1 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/02/2026 12:21:25 pm )

##PAGE2##

WP No. 1950 of 2026

..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,

praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the

first respondent herein vide his proceedings Na.Ka. No.Gratuity / Kaa.A/ 2025

dated 06.02.2025 and consequently direct the first respondent to issue the

balance 8 days gratuity with interest to the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s): S.Ezhilraj

For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Selvaraj for R1

Additional Government Pleader

Mr.P.Balathandayutham for R2

Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the

first respondent dated 06.02.2025, and consequently, seeking a direction to the

first respondent to disburse the balance gratuity for 8 days, together with

interest, to the petitioner.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as an NMR (Non-

Muster Roll) employee under the first respondent Sugar Mill and rendered 28

years of continuous service, retiring on superannuation on 31.01.2017. Despite

__________

Page2 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/02/2026 12:21:25 pm )

##PAGE3##

WP No. 1950 of 2026

being eligible for gratuity under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,

the first respondent calculated gratuity at the rate of 7 days’ wages per year,

instead of 15 days’ wages, which is contrary to statutory provisions and the

binding circulars issued by the Commissioner of Sugar, the 2nd respondent

herein. The 2nd respondent, by Circulars dated 25.07.1990 and 04.12.2009,

categorically directed that seasonal/NMR employees who have completed the

prescribed service are entitled to gratuity at the rate of 15 days’ wages per year,

with strict instructions for timely settlement. Earlier, the petitioner approached

this Court in W.P No.17364 of 2022, wherein this Court, by order dated

08.07.2022, directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s

representation. Though the petitioners submitted representations on 13.06.2023,

10.10.2023 and 24.01.2024, the respondents failed to consider the same. Hence

the petitioner initiated Contempt Petition No.3246 of 2025, wherein this Court

granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging the rejection order dated

06.02.2025. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue

involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra, as the same has

already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A Nos.361, 362,

363 and 365 of 2024 and batch cases. Accordingly, he prayed to allow this writ

petition.

__________

Page3 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/02/2026 12:21:25 pm )

##PAGE4##

WP No. 1950 of 2026

4.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for

the first respondent would submit though the present issue is covered by the

order of the Division Bench of this court, this Court may grant liberty to the

respondents to disburse the amount, subject to verification as to whether any

appeal is pending against the order of the Division Bench of this Court.

5.In response to the submissions made by the learned Additional

Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, the learned counsel for

the petitioner would submit that the order of the Division Bench has attained

finality and that no appeal has been filed. Accordingly, he prayed for

appropriate orders.

6.Heard the learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top