Madras High Court
A.Jayavel vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 21 October, 2024
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 21.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.26597 of 2024
A.Jayavel ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Thiruvannamalai Region,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Thiruvannamalai Circle,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3. The Administrator of
H.H.506, Nayampadi Primary Agricultural Co-operative
Credit Society Limited,
Rep. By its Administrator,
Chengam (Tk)
Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the
impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent letter dated 25.07.2024 and quash
the same and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the retirement benefits
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
namely leave encashment Rs.2,83,672/-, EPF Rs.30,054/- and Gratuity of
Rs.6,39,858/- a total sum of Rs.9,53,584/- together with interest @ 12%
amounts from the date of retirement i.e 31.07.2022 till the payment is made
within the stipulated time fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Kumar
Special Government Pleader
for R1 to R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the retirement benefits of the petitioner along with interest based on the representation made by the petitioner on 04.03.2024.
2. Heard Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Ravi Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined as a Salesman in the 3rd respondent society on 01.02.1990. He was thereafter promoted as a junior clerk 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis in the year 1992. After completing 32 years of service, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2024.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the retirement benefits have not been settled to the petitioner based on some objections that were made and that till the retirement of the petitioner, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and no proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 81 or Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. In view of the same, the petitioner made a representation for the settlement of the entire retirement benefits with interest. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that the petitioner was earlier working at Periyakilampatti Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited and a total sum of Rs.7,58,968/- was not recovered and therefore, the President of the said society had requested the Deputy Registrar to initiate appropriate proceedings 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis against the petitioner for recovery of the said amount. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that said society is not a party in the present writ petition.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner failed to recover the amount that are due and payable to the society from the borrowers / members and as a result, a total sum of Rs.28,21,552.48/- is the loss that has been caused to the society. In view of the same, the terminal benefits of the petitioner cannot be released and it has to be adjusted towards the amount that was not recovered by the petitioner and as a result of which, the 3rd respondent society sustained a loss.
7. In reply to the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already been permitted to retire from service. That apart, the non recovery pertains to the period from 12.01.2011 to 30.08.2014 and whereas, the recovery was sought to be made from the petitioner from the year 2024 when he was in the verge of retirement. The learned counsel further submitted that no disciplinary proceedings were 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis initiated against the petitioner and no proceedings were also initiated under Section 81 or 90 of the Act. Therefore, there is no reason to withhold the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the judgement of this Court in [S.Ezhumalai Vs.Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others] in WP No.6657 of 2023 dated 11.07.2023. The relevant portions that were relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are extracted hereunder :-
6. Though certain discrepancies were found in the audit for the year 2018~2019, it is relevant to note that based on the audit report, no surcharge proceedings were initiated under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co~operative Societies Act. Now, the petitioner though was not permitted to retire, it appears that no departmental proceedings were also initiated against him however, he was relieved from service on 31.07.2022. It is relevant to note that even assuming that any surcharge proceedings culminates as against the petitioner which is enforceable order. Whereas as per Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Co~operative Societies Act, there is clear bar for attaching the Provident Fund as well as Gratuity. Further, the 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1466 of 2015, after perusing various statutory proceedings including the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Employees- Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Co~operative Societies Act, 1983, held that the terminal benefits cannot be withheld in the absence of any statutory provision enabling the same and directed the respondents to pay the amount.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that there is totally a sum of Rs.16,59,831/~ payable to the petitioner though he was not permitted to retire from service. In such view of the matter, the respondents are directed to release all the retirement benefits namely Provident Fund, Gratuity and Leave Encashment to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and liberty is hereby granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in the event of any surcharge proceedings reached its logical conclusion for recovery of any alleged amount as per law. However, the respondents are directed to settle the retirement benefits as indicated above, with statutory interest at the rate of 10% per annum, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the event of failure to settle the amount, the amount shall carry 12% interest till the amount is 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis settled.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon yet another judgement passed in the matter of [A.Sekar Vs.Joint Registrar of Co-operative societies in WP No.9494 of 2022] dated 11.09.2023. The said judgement also related to a very similar case where the retirement benefits were not settled after permitting the employee to retire from service.
10. In the considered view of this Court, there is no reason to withhold the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner. It is made clear in the above order which in turn relied upon the order of the Division Bench that the terminal benefits cannot be withheld in the absence of any statutory provision enabling the same and in a case where no disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the concerned employee was also permitted to retire from service. In this case, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and no proceedings were initiated under Section 81 or 90 of the Act. Therefore, based on some objection, the retirement benefits that are payable to the petitioner cannot be withheld.
7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to release the retirement benefits of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with statutory interest at the rate of 10% per annum. In the event of failure to settle the amount, it will carry an interest of 12% till the amount is finally settled.
12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
21.10.2024
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
rka
To
1. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvannamalai Region, Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvannamalai Circle, Thiruvannamalai District.
3. The Administrator of H.H.506, Nayampadi Primary Agricultural Co-operative 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Credit Society Limited, Rep. By its Administrator,Chengam (Tk), Thiruvannamalai District.
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
rka WP No.26597 of 2024 21.10.2024 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis