Madras High Court
A.I. Arul vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 27 October, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.709 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
W.P.(MD).No.709 of 2014
A.I. Arul ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Registrar of Co-operative Society,
170 EVR Periyar Main Road,
NVN Building,
Kilpauk,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society,
Sivagangai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to settle the
terminal benefits of the petitioner sum of Rs.176,476/-(Rupees one lakh
seventy six thousand four hundred and seventy six only) towards medical
reimbursement and balance salary of Rs.11,575/-(Rupees eleven thousand five
hundred and seventy five only) with interest thereof as per the circular
Na.Ka.No.11759/97.98/E2 dated 27.06.98 and as requested by the petitioner in
his representation 25.03.2013 within a time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner :Mrs.Chamundi Bose
For R1 :Mr.M.Lingadurai
Government Advocate
For 2 :Mr.S.Seenivasagam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P.(MD).No.709 of 2014
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the second respondent to settle a sum of Rs.1,76,476/-(Rupees one
lakh seventy six thousand four hundred and seventy six only) towards medical
reimbursement and balance salary of Rs.11,575/-(Rupees eleven thousand five
hundred and seventy five only) with interest thereof, as per the circular
Na.Ka.No.11759/97.98/E2 dated 27.06.98.
2.Though the petitioner has made a claim towards medical
reimbursement and balance of salary, the learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent submitted that the withholding sum of Rs.11,575/- was
pursuant to an order passed for recovery, which was never challenged by the
petitioner.
3.As regards the medical reimbursement, it is the case of the
petitioner that the petitioner had undergone heart surgery on 14.03.2006 in the
hospital recognized and approved in the circular dated 27.06.1998. According
to which, the petitioner was eligible for medical reimbursement to the tune of
Rs.1,00,000/-. It is stated that the petitioner sent a few representations, after his
surgery, for medical reimbursement. The learned counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.709 of 2014
second respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of
writ petition against Co-operative Society referring to the Full Bench judgment
of this Court in Pitchumani and Others -vs- The Management of Sri Chakra
Tyres Limited, reported in 2004(2) LLN 1086 and a few other judgments.
4.It is the case of the second respondent that the second respondent
which is a co-operative institution is governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu
Co-opeative Societies Act. Referring to Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Co-
operative Societies Act, it was pointed out by the second respondent that the
second respondent has framed regulations relating to medical reimbursement to
its employees subject to By-law No.44 of the Bank. As per Regulations, it is
stated that the respondents are liable to provide medical reimbursement to
employees only from and out of the Employees Reserve Fund created from the
net profit of the bank or general funds of the bank. Since the Society is
continuously incurring loss, it is further contended that there is no scope for
disbursing medical reimbursement to the petitioner. The petitioner has
approached this Court earlier for similar relief by filing a writ petition in
W.P(MD)No.11791 of 2011. It was also contended by the petitioner that the
respondent bank have settled the amount towards medical reimbursement to the
employees, who are similarly placed like that of the petitioner. This Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.709 of 2014
finally disposed of the said writ petition in the following lines:
“13.In such view of the matter, no useful purpose
will be served in keeping the writ petition pending.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the
respondents to submit a fresh representation enclosing all
the details including proof to show that two other employees
who are similarly placed like that of the petitioner were
granted medical relief. Such representation shall be
submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such
representation, the second respondent shall consider the
same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in
accordance with law and if two other employees have been
granted the medical relief, then the second respondent shall
also consider the case of the petitioner on par with the said
two employees. Such orders shall be passed within a period
of four weeks thereafter. No costs.”
5.Pursuant to the direction of this Court in the previous writ petition
filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner requested for the information
under Right To Information Act, to furnish the particulars about the
disbursement of amount towards medical reimbursement to other persons.
However, a reply was sent to the petitioner stating that no document or record is
available to show any disbursement towards medical reimbursement to any one.
Taking advantage of the fact that no records are available, the learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.709 of 2014
appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents should be directed to
produce the records. This Court is unable to appreciate the argument of the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the application submitted by the
petitioner under Right To Information Act, after referring to the names and
designation of the 11 staffs of society, the petitioner sought for information in
the following words:
“vdnt nkw;fz;l ika tq;fpapd; gzpahsh;fs; kw;Wk;
gy gzpahsh;fspd; kUj;Jt cjtp bjhif (Medical Aid Claim)
nfhhp mDkjpj;J tHq;fpa tpguq;fs; mjhtJ gzpahsh;fs; bgah;-
gjtp-kUj;Jt cjtp bjhif (Medical Aid Claim) mDkjpj;J
tHq;fpa bjhif mDkjpj;j ehs; Kjyhd tpguq;fis vdf;F
jfty; mwpa[k; chpikr; rl;lk; 2005 d;go jfty; tHq;Fk;go
gzptd;g[ld; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;.”
6.The second respondent has specifically pleaded in this case that no
one was given medical reimbursement as the respondent bank was unable to
show any net profit. Though it is admitted before this Court for a particular year
the respondent bank made a profit, it is contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents that the accumulated loss for more than two
decades, would show that no welfare fund could have been created out of the
net profits of the bank. Neither the Bank nor the Government has framed any
scheme for providing medical assistance. It is admitted that a sum of Rs.50/- is
paid to all employees as medical allowance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.709 of 2014
7.This Court finds no material available to show that the respondent
bank has disbursed or settled the medical reimbursement in the case of any
other employee of the second respondent. As pointed out by the respondents,
the petitioner is not entitled to medical reimbursement without showing that the
respondent bank had made net worth positive to create a common fund which
can be utilized for medical reimbursement and others welfare measures
indicated in Section 72 of the Act. Merely because, the respondent bank was
making a profit for a particular year, this Court is unable to sustain the claim of
the petitioner for medical reimbursement.
8.Both the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent as well
as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the
writ petition filed for medical reimbursement is not maintainable, in view of the
Full Bench judgment of this Court. This Court is not inclined to dismiss the
writ petition on the ground of maintainability, especially when similar writ
petition filed by the petitioner was considered and disposed of by this Court on
merits. The writ petition was filed in the year 2014 and hence it will not be
appropriate to direct the petitioner to seek alternative remedy after this length
of time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.709 of 2014
9.In view of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is dismissed only
on merits. No costs.
27.10.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: yes / No
Ns
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Registrar of Co-operative Society,
170 EVR Periyar Main Road,
NVN Building,
Kilpauk,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.709 of 2014
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
Ns
W.P.(MD).No.709 of 2014
27.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
