IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 283 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20/06/2005 in WP NO : 23387 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: P.Rajaiah S/o.Venkati, Karimnagar Dist. Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Karimnagar R/o. H.No. 6-6-335, Sharmanagar, Karimnagar. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 A.P. Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad rep. by its Chairman. 2 Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd., Shakella, rep. by its Paid Secretary. 3 The Registrar of Cooperative Societies / Commissioner for Cooperation, Gruhakalpa, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Karimnagar District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Karimnagar, rep. by its General Manager. 5 The Spl. Cadre Deputy REgistrar (on special duty) The Karimnagar District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Karimnagar. 6 The Karimnagar District Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Karimnagar, Rep. by its Business Manager. 7 Deputy Registrar/Divisional Cooperative Officer, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 8 The District Cooperative Officer, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.M.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 283 of 2008 JUDGMENT: In this appeal, the appellant-employee has challenged the validity of a common order passed in Writ Petition Nos.23387 of 2001 and 5028 of 2003. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in nutshell are as under : The appellant was an employee of respondent No.4- Bank. By a Surcharge order dated 14th November 1994, a sum of Rs.24,374/- was determined under Section 60 of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, which was payable by the appellant employee to the respondent employer Bank. The appellant had challenged the validity of the said order before the A.P.Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad in C.T.A.No.131 of 1996. The Tribunal had confirmed the order dated 14th November 1994. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant had filed Writ Petition No.23387 of 2001, which has been dismissed and therefore, the appellant has filed this appeal challenging the validity of the aforesaid order passed in appeal. Learned Advocate Sri M.V.Ramana Rao, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the amount of Gratuity, which was payable to the appellant, could not have been withheld by the respondent-employer. This is the main submission which he has made. With regard to the aforesaid submission made by the learned Advocate for the appellant, learned Advocate Sri P.Srinivas, appearing for respondent No.4-Bank, has submitted that the entire amount of Gratuity payable to the appellant had been credited in his Savings Bank Account and thus, there is no question of withholding the amount of Gratuity. He has however, further submitted that the amount of Surcharge along with interest thereon, was subsequently debited from his Savings Bank Account as the said amount was finally determined and validity of the orders of Surcharge had been confirmed not only by the Tribunal but also by a learned Single Judge of this Court. In the circumstances, the learned Advocate for the Bank has submitted that the grievance made by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the amount of Gratuity payable to the appellant has not been paid, is not correct. We have considered the aforesaid submission made by the learned Advocate for the appellant. We do not find any substance in the said submission for the reason that the amount of gratuity has already been paid to the appellant, but only the amount of Surcharge determined as per the order dated 14th November 1994 along with interest thereon, has been subsequently debited from his Savings Bank Account. The said debit entry appears to be just and proper for the reason that the amount of Surcharge payable by the appellant, has been confirmed not only by the Tribunal but also by a learned Single Judge of this Court as stated hereinabove. No other ground has been argued by the learned Advocate for the appellant and, therefore, we do not find any substance in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 18th March 2008 ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr