WP/25553/2024 of V.NAGARAJAN Vs THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF on 11 September 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pass suitable orders relieving the petitioner from the second respondent Society with effect from 30.04.2024, pursuant to Resolution No.1 dated 25.06.2024, and to pay the petitioner’s service benefits amounting to Rs.16,58,143/-, as recommended by the second respondent vide letter dated 25.06.2024.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, due to his deteriorating health condition, the petitioner submitted his resignation letter to the second respondent on 01.04.2024, a copy of which was also submitted to the first respondent. Upon receipt of the petitioner’s resignation letter, the first respondent directed the second respondent to consider the resignation and pass an appropriate resolution. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent passed a resolution dated 25.06.2024, stating that the petitioner’s resignation had been accepted and that he had been relieved from the Society with effect from 30.04.2024. Thereafter, the second respondent also addressed a letter to the first respondent on 25.06.2024, requesting necessary action to withdraw the amount from the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Housing Federation. In support of the same, a copy of the Minutes dated 25.06.2024 and the letter addressed by the second respondent to the first respondent, dated 25.06.2024, have been filed along with the typed set of papers. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the withholding of the gratuity and Provident Fund amounts is contrary to the provisions of Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. Hence, he prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to settle the Provident Fund and gratuity amounts, as quantified in the letter dated 25.06.2024.

3. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and would contend that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in K. Marappan v. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Cuddalore, reported in 2006 (4) CTC 689. He would further submit that the second respondent Society is facing a financial crisis. Therefore, even if this Court issues a direction to the respondents, they would not be in a position to settle the entire amount in one lump sum. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

4. Though the second respondent is represented through a learned counsel, who appeared before this Court on 09.09.2026 and sought time to file a counter affidavit, the learned counsel has not appeared today. Therefore, it may be presumed that the second respondent has no objection to the claim made by the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

6. On a perusal of the factual position, it is seen that there is no serious dispute raised by the first respondent with regard to the quantum of the Provident Fund and gratuity amounts payable to the petitioner, which amounts to Rs.16,58,143/-. In order to substantiate the same, the petitioner has also filed the letter addressed by the second respondent to the first respondent. The primary defence raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader is with regard to the maintainability of the present Writ Petition, by relying upon the judgment in K. Marappan’s case (cited supra).

7. In order to meet the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.234 of 2020, dated 12.10.2020, wherein the Division Bench, after elaborately discussing the judgment in K. Marappan’s case (cited supra), held as follows:- “8.In order to resolve this preliminary question of maintainability of the writ petition, it would be appropriate to extract paragraph 21 of the Full Bench decision in K.Marappan's case (supra), which is gainfully reproduced hereinunder: “21. From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge:

i. If a particular co-operative society can be characterised as a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (applying the tests evolved by the Supreme Court in that behalf), it would also be ‘an authority’ within the meaning and for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. In such a situation, an order passed by a society in violation of the bye-laws can be corrected by way of Writ Petition;

ii. Applying the tests in Ajay Hasia it is held that a cooperative society carrying on banking business cannot be termed as an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution;

iii. Even if a society cannot be characterised as a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, a Writ would lie against it to enforce a statutory public duty cast upon the society. In such a case, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the society is being treated as a ‘person’ or ‘an authority’ within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution and what is material is the nature of the statutory duty placed upon it and the Court will enforce such statutory public duty. Although it is not easy to define what a public function or public duty is, it can reasonably said that such functions are similar to or closely related to those performable by the State in its sovereign capacity.

iv. A society, which is not a ‘State’ would not normally be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but in certain circumstances, a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutory provisions which need to be complied with by all concerned including societies. If they violate such statutory provisions a writ would be issued for compliance of those provisions. v. Where a Special Officer is appointed in respect of a cooperative society which cannot be characterised as a ‘State’ a writ would lie when the case falls under Clauses (iii) and

(iv) above.

vi. The bye-laws made by a co-operative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act,

1983 do not have the force of law. Hence, where a society cannot be characterised as a ‘State’, the service conditions of its employees governed by its bye-laws cannot be enforced through a Writ Petition.

vii. In the absence of special circumstances, the Court will not ordinarily exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Act provides for an alternative remedy. viii.The decision in M. Thanikkachalam v. Madhuranthagam Agricultural Co-operative Society, 2000 (4) CTC 556, is no longer good law, in view of the decision of the SevenJudge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas case and the other decisions referred to here before.”

9. On a perusal of Clause (iv) of Para 21 as quoted above, it is evident that a writ petition has been held to be maintainable if a complaint is made with regard to violation of statutory provisions or for compliance of such provisions. On the other hand, Clause (vi) thereof indicates that the service conditions of employees that are governed by bye-laws cannot be enforced through a writ petition.

10. Having compared and assessed the rival submissions, we find that the respondent petitioner had come up before this Court for the enforcement of his rights which stand protected under Sections 78 and 79 through a Statute, namely, The Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The said provisions are reproduced hereinunder: “78. Provident Fund.- (1) A registered society not being an establishment to which the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (Central Act XIX of 1952) applies, may establish a provident fund for the benefit of its employees to which shall be credited all contributions made by the employees and the society in accordance with the by-laws.

(2) A provident fund established by a registered society under sub-section (1) shall be invested in the financing bank, but shall not (a) be used in the business of the society;

(b) form part of the assets of the society;

(c) be liable to attachment or be subject to any other process of any court of other authority.

79. Gratuity Fund.- (1) A registered society not being an establishment to which the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972 (Central Act 39 of 1972) applies, may provide by its by-laws for payment of gratuity to the employees at such rates and on such conditions as may be specified in the by-laws and such society may establish a gratuity fund or make other arrangements for the purpose.

(2) A gratuity fund, if any, established by a registered society under sub-section (1) shall be invested in the financing bank, but shall not- (a) be used in the business of the society; (b) form part of the assets of the society;

(c) be liable to attachment or be subject to any other proves of any court or other authority.”

11. The order that was impugned in the writ petition was passed by the Deputy Registrar calling upon the Society not to permit the respondent petitioner to retire from service, the consequence whereof is that the respondent petitioner will not be able to receive his benefits including Provident Fund and Gratuity that are statutorily controlled by Sections 78 and 79 of the 1983 Act.”

8. In the case in hand, the amount claimed by the petitioner relates to the Provident Fund and gratuity, which are covered under Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The Division Bench of this Court has ratiocinated that, since the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by a statute and the petitioner is not claiming any right under the bye-laws, then the Writ Petition is maintainable.

9. The aforesaid proposition is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case also, the petitioner is claiming Provident Fund and gratuity benefits under the statutory provisions. Therefore, this Court holds that the present Writ Petition is maintainable.

10. Coming to the prayer for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to settle the service benefits amounting to Rs.16,58,143/-, as recommended by the second respondent vide letter dated 25.06.2024. Though the first respondent has raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition, the quantum of the amount payable to the petitioner has not been disputed. The only grievance of the first respondent is that, if the second respondent is directed to settle the entire amount in one lump sum, it would be difficult for the Society, as they are facing a financial crisis.

11. The aforesaid submission cannot be faulted. Therefore, though this Court is inclined to direct both the respondents to settle the service benefits amounting to Rs.16,58,143/-, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to settle the said amount in three instalments.

12. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondents to settle the service benefits amounting to Rs.16,58,143/- in three instalments, as detailed below:-

(i) A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- shall be paid in two installemets each installment, of Rs.5,00,000/- at the interval of four weeks. The first installment shall be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of a coy of this order;

(ii) The remaining amount of Rs.6,58,143/- shall be paid within further period of four weeks;

(iii) In the event of any default in settling the aforesaid amounts within the time stipulated above, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of respective default till the date of actual disbursement; and

(iv) There shall be no order as to costs. 11-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV To

1. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Cuddalore Region, Cuddalore.

2. Virudhachalam Taluk Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Rep by its Administrator, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 25553 of 2024 11-09-2026