1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD)No.823 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 N.Ragunathan .. Petitioner .vs. 1.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (housing), 4th Main Rod, Gandhi Nagar, Adayar, Chennai-600 020. 2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-op.Societies (Housing), Thanjavur District. 3.The Special Officer, T.1818, Thanjavur Municipal Employees Co.op. Housing Society Limited, Thanjavur-6. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in RC No.951/2010/SF1, dated 14.06.2010, quashing the same and consequently directing the respondents to disburse the accrued surrender leave Salary, EPF (Society Contribution) and gratuity with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. For Petitioner : Mr.F.Deepak For Respondents 1 & 2: Mr.M.Govindan,Spl.Govt.Pleader. For Respondent-3 : Mr.K.A.Nandhagopan ORDER The petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent - Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing). By the impugned order dated 14.06.2010, the petitioner's revision application filed under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 was partly allowed. The order came to be passed to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.620/2010, dated 21.01.2010, wherein, the 1st respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 18.07.2009. The authority held that the petitioner's request for benefit arising out of the Settlement under Section 12(3) of I.D.Act cannot be granted, as the Resolution passed by the Elected Board of Directors of the Society was not approved by the Registrar and the Settlement was also objected to by the Audit Department and, therefore, his salary cannot be calculated on the basis of the amount fixed under Section 12(3) Settlement and hence the request for leave salary and gratuity, based upon the last drawn https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 salary available as per the Settlement, cannot be feasible for compliance. However, the 3rd respondent, the Special Officer, was directed to pay gratuity and leave salary as per the leave on his credit and as per the existing by-laws of the Society within 15 days. Aggrieved by the denial of major relief, the writ petition came to be filed. 2.The contention raised by the petitioner in the affidavit was that he has been receiving salary in terms of Settlement under Section 12(3) of I.D.Act for the period from 2001- 2006 and hence the terminal benefits should be calculated only as per the said Settlement and similarly placed persons were given relief in terms of the Settlement and the audit objections cannot have any bearing on the petitioner claiming relief. 3.When the matter came up on 22.01.2011, the learned Government Advocate took notice for Respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent was directed to be served privately and accordingly the 3rd respondent is represented by counsel. 4.The issue raised by the petitioner is no longer res integra in view of the Division Bench decision of of this Court in Tamil Nadu Vatta Kooturavu Veetu Vasathi Sangangalin Anaithu Paniyalargal Madya Sangam vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-opertive Societies (Housing), Cudalore Circle and others - 2008(2) LLN 236, wherein it was held as follows: "15.By no stretch of imagination, the said Rule can be said to be either conflicting with the provisions of I.D.Act or introduced with any other ulterior motive to defeat the lawful rights of the employees of any of the registered societies. The purport of the Rule is to ensure that a registered society does not become defunct or unwieldy and any of the registered societies should not be allowed to be closed due to dearth of funds by mismanagement. Therefore, the constitution of the committee for formulating the common wage structure for the employees of the registered co-operatrive societies by G.O.Ms.No.289, dated 18 December 1998, and the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16 August 2000, were all in furtherance of the fulfilment of the above objective of the State Government. 16.In the light of the above factors, we are convinced that the orders impugned in the writ petitions issued by the first respondent directing the respective co-operative societies to cancel the settlements which came to be arrived in contravention of the directions issued by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, dated 16 October 1997, issued under S.181 of the Act 1983 by invoking S.166 of the Act 1983 are perfectly justified. We are also convinced that the Division Bench decision in Tiruchirapalli Hiruthayapuram Co-operative https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Bank Employees Union v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruchirapalli (vide sura), upon which heavy reliance was placed upon by the appellant does not in any way support the stand of the appellant. On the other hand, we can only state that the subsequent direction issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, dated 16 October 1997, by invoking the powers vested in him under S.181 of the Act 1983 was validly made and the impugned orders, dated 12 March 1999 and 8 April 1999, as well as by applying S.166 of the Act 1983 were all in tune with the observations made in the above referred to Division Bench decision and therefore, we do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned orders. Moreover, so long as the directions issued by the Registrar, dated 16 October 1997, under S.181 of the Act 1983 remains in force, the subsequent directions and the impugned orders issued by the first respondent by invoking S.166 of the Act 1983 were well within the powers and jurisdiction of the first respondent. 17.It will have to be stated that the appellant not having challenged the directions of the Registrar, dated 16 October1997, issued under S.181 of the Act 1983, cannot be permitted to challenge the consequential orders passed under S.166 of the Act 1983 impugned in the writ petitions." 5.In view of the same, the writ petition stands dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (housing), 4th Main Rod, Gandhi Nagar, Adayar, Chennai-600 020. 2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-op.Societies (Housing), Thanjavur District. 3.The Special Officer, T.1818, Thanjavur Municipal Employees Co.op. Housing Society Limited, Thanjavur-6. +1cc to Mr.F.Deepak, Advocate, Sr.No.35528 Order in W.P(MD)No.823 of 2011 & MP(MD)Nos.1&2 of 2011 Date:12.10.2011 gb/SMA/28.10.2011/5C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/