S.P. Anandagopal vs The Special Officer Tamilnadu Cooperative State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the respondent, dated 31.3.2010, is arbitrary and illegal, as it is contrary to the provisions of

the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner is not liable to attachment or be subject to any other process

of any Court or other authority, as per Section 79(2)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. Therefore, the impugned order

passed by the respondent is liable to be set aside.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the decision of the

Larger Bench of this Court, in K. Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and The Special Officer, Vattur Co-operative

Agricultural Bank, However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that it may be open to the petitioner to challenge the

impugned order of the respondent, dated 31.3.2010, before the appropriate forum or authority, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-

operative societies Act, 1983, and the rules framed thereunder. The order passed by the respondent, who is the Special Officer of the Tamil Nadu

Co-operative State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, Chennai, cannot be challenged by the petitioner before this Court, under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had also pointed out that the gratuity payable to the petitioner shall be forfeited, as per Clause

6 of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. As such, the present writ petition is not maintainable. In view of the submissions made by the

learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable before

this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as per the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court, in K. Marappan Vs. The Deputy

Registrar of Co-operative Societies and The Special Officer, Vattur Co-operative Agricultural Bank, ). However, it goes without saying that it

would be open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order, dated 31.3.2010, before the appropriate forum or authority, in the manner

known to law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.