HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 27820 OF 2008 Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of November, Two Thousand and Ten Between A.Mahalakshmi Petitioner AND The District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Marripalem, VIDA Lay Out, NH No.5 Road, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Rep.by its General Manager Respondent ORAL ORDER: The petitioner, a retired Staff Assistant/Cashier of the K.Kotapadu Branch of the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam District, assails its action in not releasing his retirement benefits. The petitioner was selected as a Category – V employee and appointed as a Staff Assistant in the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam in the year 1999. He retired from service on 31.05.2006. His retirement benefits were however not paid. The reason for withholding these benefits was that the petitioner was found to have caused loss to the A.Koduru PACS while he was in its service. This fact came to light during the statutory audit and surcharge proceedings under Sec. 60 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 were initiated in this regard. However, the surcharge order of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, dated 2.7.2004, holding the petitioner responsible for the financial loss of Rs.58,839/- was set aside by the Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam by order dated 26.7.2005. The operative portion of the Tribunal’s order reads to the effect that the surcharge order dated 2.7.2004 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Visakhapatnam to make an enquiry afresh and take an appropriate decision dispassionately in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience. Though this order was passed as long back as in July, 2005, it appears that no further action was initiated by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner was also permitted to retire on 31.5.2006. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Visakhapatnam has not chosen to re-enquire into the matter for all these years inspite of the specific direction of the Cooperative Tribunal. That being so, the respondent bank cannot keep the petitioner under suspended animation indefinitely in so far as the payment of his retirement benefits are concerned. More than four years have elapsed since the petitioner’s retirement. In that view of the matter, the action of the respondent bank in delaying the payment of the petitioner’s retirement benefits, on the ground that the matter has been remanded by the Cooperative Tribunal, cannot be countenanced. At this distance of time, it would not be open to the authorities to reinitiate action against the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed directing the respondent bank to release the petitioner’s retirement benefits as per his eligibility within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar November 24, 2010 MAS