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) 33770

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
P.Padmanaban – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar of Co-Operative Society(Housing) – Respondent
W.M.P.No.19040 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy
For the Respondents: Mr.C.P.Senniyangiri for RR1, 3 and 4, Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, Standing Counsel for R2

Authorities cannot withhold retirement benefits like gratuity and provident fund absent statutory provision.

Headnote:First Paragraph: The petition relies on the decision in 2015 (6) MLJ 684, holding that absent statutory provision, authorities cannot withhold provident fund, gratuity, and retirement benefits. Petitioner appointed as Junior Clerk on 23.05.1990, resigned on 07.01.2019, relieved on 11.01.2019, with no pending disciplinary proceedings, yet benefits of Rs.18,30,600/- unpaid since 2019. Court finds respondents must pay eligible benefits with interest. Second Paragraph: Issue framed as entitlement to retirement benefits post-resignation without pending proceedings, covered by prior ruling. Ratio: No jurisdiction to withhold benefits absent statutory enablement; acknowledgment of due amount vide proceedings dated 24.01.2022. Third Paragraph: Writ petition disposed directing disbursement of all eligible retirement benefits including gratuity, provident fund, earned leave salary, security deposit with statutory interest within four weeks.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks retirement benefits; covered by prior precedent. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents agree to pay with interest within four weeks. (Para 3 , 4)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner retirement benefits, viz., gratuity, provident fund, earned leave salary, security deposit and all other benefits to the tune of Rs.18,30,000/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of payment.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in the present case is covered by the decision of this Court reported in (2015) 6 MLJ 684 ( A.Sengodan Vs. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies , Chennai, wherein it has been held that, in the absence of any statutory provision enabling the authorities for withholding provident fund, gratuity and other retirement benefits, it is not within the jurisdiction of the respondent authorities to withhold the same. He would further submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the fourth respondent Society on 23.05.1990 and continued in service till 11.01.2019. He would further submit that the petitioner had tendered his resignation on 07.01.2019 before the fourth respondent and upon consideration of the same, the fourth respondent permitted him to be relieved from service by order dated 11.01.2019. He would also submit that no disciplinary or surcharge proceedings are pending. Despite the petitioner having retired in the year 2019, he has not been paid with the gratuity, provident fund, earned leave salary, security deposit and all other benefits.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 would submit that whatever amounts the petitioner is lawfully entitled to shall be disbursed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order together with statutory interest.

4. In view of the above, this Court directs the respondents to disburse all the eligible retirement benefits including gratuity, provident fund, earned leave salary, security deposit and other attendant benefits to the petitioner, along with statutory interest, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While disbursing the amount, the respondents shall keep in view that vide proceedings dated 24.01.2022, there was an acknowledgment that there is a sum of Rs.18,30,600/- is already due. If for any reason, the petitioner is found entitled to any amount lesser than what has been claimed, an opportunity shall be afforded to the petitioner and a reasoned order shall be passed with regard to such differential amount.

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