Madras High Court
Dd 547 Palayam Primary Agricultural vs The Additional Registrar on 10 June, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)No.100 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.(MD)No.100 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.1412 of 2023
DD 547 Palayam Primary Agricultural
Co-Operative Bank,
Represented Through its President,
Palayam Post, Vedasandur Taluk,
Dindigul District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Additional Registrar,
Co-Operative Societies,
(Marketing Planning and Development),
Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.
2.The Provisional Authority,
U/S.153 of the Tamilnadu Co-Operative Societies Act,
(Regional Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies),
Pudukkottai.
3.The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies,
District Committee Chairman,
Dindigul Region, Dindigul District.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 06:09:41 pm )
W.A.(MD)No.100 of 2023
4.M.Ramanujam ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow
the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.20489
of 2015 dated 09-11-2022 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr. V.O.S.Kalaiselvam
For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan,
Addl. Government Pleader for R1 to R3.
Mr.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi for R4.
JUDGMENT
Heard both sides.
2.The management of the cooperative society is on appeal
challenging the order of the learned Single Judge.
3.One Ramanujam / fourth respondent herein was serving in the
appellant / cooperative bank as Secretary. He retired in the year 2008.
According to him, his terminal benefits were not settled in full. He,
therefore, filed revision petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 06:09:41 pm )
Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 before the Regional Joint Registrar of
Cooperative Society, Pudukkottai. The revisional authority allowed the
revision petition on 30.09.2015 and directed the management to settle the
balance amount payable to the fourth respondent. Challenging the order
of the revisional authority, the management filed W.P.(MD)No.20489 of
2025. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge
in the following terms:-
“3. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, this
Court directed the petitioner Bank to circulate the amount
payable to the 4th respondent under the head of terminal benefits
and the amount that ought to be recovered from the 4th
respondent. The petitioner has circulated it and the same is
extracted here under:
“8. It is most respectfully submitted that the terminal
benefits payable to the 4th respondent is as hereunder.
i. Gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act -
Rs.3,09,508
ii. The arrears of salary - Rs.1,49,181
iii. The Security deposit - Rs. 305
-------------------------
Total - Rs.4,58,994
-------------------------
9. It is most respectfully submitted that in the audit report
the following amount is found against the 4th respondent
to be payable by him.
i. The objection in the audit found dues due from him is -
Rs. 1,38,269.14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 06:09:41 pm )
ii. As on the audit report the deficit of the
furniture's found dues from him is
- Rs. 8,356.59
iii. As per the order in the surcharge proceedings
in Tha Va No.3/2011sa.pa dated 14.01.2012 is
- Rs. 63,790.00
iv. The interest as per the order in the
surcharge proceedings is
- Rs. 99, 572.00
----------------------
Total Rs.3,09,987.73”
------------------------
On scrutinizing the calculation, it is seen that the
petitioner Bank has imposed an interest on the surcharge
which is on the higher side and therefore, this Court is
reducing the interest portion alone.
4. As far as the surcharge amount to the tune of
Rs.63,790/- is concerned, the 4th respondent ought to pay the
amount. As far as the audit report on the deficit of furniture to
the tune of Rs.8,356.59 is concerned, this Court is inclined to
quash the same. Another amount of Rs.1,38,269.14/- that is
claimed as payable by the 4th respondent is the audit objection
which is claimed as dues because dereliction of duty on the part
of the 4th respondent. The learned Counsel appearing for the 4th
respondent submitted that it is only an audit objection, wherein
the revisional authority had directed the concerned authority to
appoint a committee and enquiry whether the petitioner is
payable or not, but till date the petitioner has not conducted any
enquiry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 06:09:41 pm )
5.Therefore, this Court deems it fit to pass the
following order:
a. The petitioner bank is directed to disburse the terminal
benefits of Rs.4,58,994/- to the 4th respondent in four equal
installments within a period of four (4) months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
b. The rate of interest for the belated payment of the gratuity
amount and other amount is 8%
c. The 4th respondent shall pay the surcharge proceedings
amount of Rs.63,790/- at the rate of 8%. (Hence the amount Rs.
99,572/- would be modified based on 8% rate of interest).
d. As on date, the amount is not quantified and it is only an
audit objection. Therefore, the appropriate authority shall
conduct an enquiry and based on the report the petitioner shall
take proceedings to recover from the 4th respondent, if need be.
The petitioner shall submit an undertaking to remit the amount
that would be would be quantified after the enquiry.”
Questioning the same, this writ appeal has been filed by the management.
4.There is no dispute that a sum of Rs.5,02,337/- has to be paid to
the employee. The calculation memo filed by the management contains
the following break-up:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 06:09:41 pm )
“1.The Gratuity - Rs.3,09,508.00
2.Salary arrears - Rs.1,49,181.00
3.The caution deposit - Rs. 305.00
---------------------
Total - Rs.4,58,994.00
---------------------”
5.It is also not in dispute that the employee suffered surcharge
order and the CMA filed by him suffered dismissal for default. The
learned Single Judge took an equitable view that demanding 18% interest
may not be appropriate and reduced it to 8%. According to the learned
Single Judge, the amount payable by the employee comes to Rs.99,572/-.
Deducting the said amount from Rs.5,02,337/-, the balance amount
payable to the employe comes to Rs.4,02,765/-. The society had already
paid a sum of Rs.1,92,829/-. Thus, the remaining amount comes to
Rs.2,09,936/- The appellant has to necessarily pay the said amount.
6.Even though the learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that the audit committee has quantified the liability of the fourth
respondent and that it is payable by him, we are of the view that since it
has no statutory basis, in the absence of surcharge order, the said amount
cannot be directed to be paid by the employee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 06:09:41 pm )
7.We are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge
does not call for interference. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,)
10.06.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
To:
1.The Additional Registrar,
Co-Operative Societies,
(Marketing Planning and Development),
Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.
2.The Provisional Authority,
U/S.153 of the Tamilnadu Co-Operative Societies Act,
(Regional Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies),
Pudukkottai.
3.The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies,
District Committee Chairman,
Dindigul Region, Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 06:09:41 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
ias
10.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 06:09:41 pm )
