High Court · 2025

WP No. 28477 of 2013IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 07-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARWP No. 28477 of 2013K.Muthukumarasamy,S/o.Kasirajan, Sathanam Pattu, Silambinathanpettai Post, C.N.Palayam, Pandrutti Taluk, Cuddalore District Petitioner(s) Vs1.The Registrar Of Cooperative Societies (housing), Tamilnadu Housing Board Complex, No.435, Nandanam, Chennai 35. 2. The Special Officer,E-2729, Public Servants (General), Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd., Pudupalayam Main Road, Cuddalore -607 0013. The Special Officer,E-2731, Neyveli Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd., Indira Nagar, Neyveli. ......Respondent(s) PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records pertaining to the order dated 28.03.2013 of the 1st respondent vide 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 28477 of 2013proceedings in Na. Ka.2669/2012/Sa.Pa.1 and quash the same in so far as in not granting the gratuity benefits and direct the respondents to disburse petitioner's service benefits like Employees Provident Fund, Earned Leave Benefits and Gratuity to the petitioner.For Petitioner: Mr.R.Naresh Kumar for Mr.P.Selvaraj For Respondents: Mr.V.Umakanth, GA for R1 Mr.R.Tamilarasan for M/s.S.V.Duraisolaimalai for R2 Mr.T.M.Rajangam for R3***** ORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records pertaining to the order dated 28.03.2013 of the 1st respondent vide proceedings in Na. Ka.2669/2012/Sa.Pa.1, quash the same in so far as in not granting the gratuity benefits and direct the respondents to disburse petitioner's service benefits, like, Employees Provident Fund, Earned Leave Benefits and Gratuity to the petitioner.2.The petitioner herein was initially appointed as a Clerk in the second respondent Society on 13.09.2000 through Employment Exchange. 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 28477 of 2013Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Manager on 01.01.2002 in the second respondent Society. At that stage, while the petitioner was working as Manager in the second respondent Society, the petitioner made a request on 31.01.2007 for transferring his services to the third respondent Society and the second respondent Society also readily issued a consent letter dated 25.08.2007. It was thereafter, the second respondent Society passed a resolution dated 27.08.2007, resolving to relieve the petitioner from the post of Manager in the second respondent Society with effect from 31.08.2007 afternoon and to pay all his monetary benefits due to him. It was thereafter, the petitioner joined in the third respondent Society on 01.09.2007 and the third respondent Society also accepted the petitioner as a Manager with continuity of service with same salary and other benefits as being drawn by the petitioner in the second respondent Society. The relevant portion from the said proceedings dated 01.09.2007 issued by the third respondent reads as under:"Tl;Lwt[ rhh;gjpthsh; - jdp mYtyh;bghUs; ? gzpaikg;g[ ? jpU/fh/Kj;JFkurhkp mth;fs; bghJ CHpah;fs; Tl;Lwt[ tPL fl;Lk; r';fj;jpypUe;J gzp khWjy; K:yk; ,r;r';fj;jpw;F gzpkhw;wk; bra;J tpLtpj;jJ ? gzpnaw;g[ Miz gpwg;gpj;jy; ? bjhlh;g[/ghh;it ? 1) bghJ CHpah;fs; Tl;Lwt[ tPL fl;Lk; r';f jdp mYtyh; mth;fs; gzpkhw;wk; bra;J tpLtpj;j bray;Kiw 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 28477 of 2013 Miz/ ehs; ? 31-08-2007/ 2) gzpkhw;wj;jpw;fhd nkw;go r';fj;jpd; jPh;khdk; vz;/1- 31-08-2007/ 3) gzpakh;j;jk; bra;Jbfhs;s ,r;r';f jPh;khdk; vz;//1- 01-09-2007/ ***********ghh;it 1 kw;Wk; 2 Mfpatw;wpy; fz;Ls;sthW bghJ CHpah;fs; Tl;Lwt[ tPL fl;Lk; r';fj;jpd; nkyhsuhf gzpg[hpe;J te;j jpU/fh/Kj;JFkurhkp mth;fis gzpkhWjy; K:yk; gzpkhw;wk; bra;J 31-08-2007 gpw;gfy; Kjy; gzpapypUe;J tpLtpf;fg;gl;L ,r; r';fj;jpd; nkysuhf gzpnaw;f tpLg;ghiz tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjd;goa[k; kw;Wk; ghh;it 3?y; fz;Ls;s jPh;khdj;jpd; goa[k; 01-09-2007 ,d;W Kw;gfy; ,r;r';fj;jpd; nkysuhf mnj gzpbjhlh;r;rpa[lDk; mnj rk;gsk; kw;Wk; ,ju rYiffSlDk; gzpapy; nrh;e;jpl jpU/fh/Kj;Jf;Fkurhkp mth;fSf;F Miz tH';fg;gLfpwJ/,d;nw gzpapy; nrh;e;J gzpnaw;g[ mwpf;ifapid cld; rkh;gpf;FkhW ,th; mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwhh;/" 3.From the above, it is evident that the past services were accepted by the third respondent Society with continuity of service i.e., services rendered by the petitioner in the second respondent Society and also agreed to be counted as service in the third respondent Society.4.Having joined in the third respondent Society, the petitioner continued as such till 12.12.2011, the date on which the petitioner tendered his resignation which was accepted by the third respondent Society. It was 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 28477 of 2013thereafter, the petitioner made a claim for payment of his terminal benefits such as Provident Fund, Earned Leave Encashment and Gratuity etc,. 5. Insofar as the payment of Provident Fund is concerned, there is no much dispute. Both the respondents 2 and 3 have admitted their liability to pay the Provident Fund to the petitioner in the counter affidavits filed by them before this Court. The second respondent agreed that the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.9375/- as on 31.03.2008 towards employees Provident Fund which was recovered from the petitioner and also stated that the said amount would be paid to the petitioner after completion of final audit for the year 2007-2008. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the amount is not paid to the petitioner even as on date. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is categorically stated that the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,38,728/- towards the Provident Fund which includes the employer's and employee's contributions. However, the said amount was not paid to the petitioner as on date allegedly due to certain financial stress faced by the third respondent Society herein. 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 28477 of 20136. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner for payment of Gratuity is concerned, the respondents 2 and 3 have taken a stand that the petitioner has not completed the minimum of 10 years of service, which is the minimum service for the payment of Gratuity in terms of the relevant By Laws of the respondents 2 and 3 Societies. It is not in dispute that minimum service required to be rendered by the employee to claim the benefit of Gratuity, is 10 years as per By Law No.27 of the second respondent society. 7. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed a review petition under Section 153 of the Tamilnadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983 before the first respondent claiming for payment of terminal benefits as noted herein above. The first respondent herein, having considered the said revision filed by the petitioner, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the transfer of the petitioner from the second respondent Society to the third respondent Society is not in accordance with law. It is stated that the second respondent society has not followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 149(2)(d) of the Tamilnadu Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1988 while giving effect to the transfer of the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the said order dated 28.03.2013 passed by the first 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 28477 of 2013respondent, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.8. No doubt, in terms of Rule 149 2(d) of the Rules, 1988, prior permission from the first respondent is required to be taken for temporary transfer of the employee from one Society to the other Society. There is no provision for permanent transfer of employee from one Society to the other Society under the Rules. The transfer can only be done by way of deputation in terms of Sub Rule 2(d) of Rule 149 of the Rules, 1988. 9.Whatever be the situation, in the facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly, both the respondents 2 and 3 Societies have mutually agreed for transfer of the petitioner from the second respondent Society to the third respondent Society. Though there is no provision for effecting permanent transfer of an employee from one society to the other society under the Rules, 1988, there is no prohibition of such transfer. The respondents 2 and 3 having availed the service of the petitioner for about 11 years and 3 months, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in contending that the petitioner has not completed minimum required 10 years 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 28477 of 2013of service and thereby, denying payment of Gratuity etc.10. As already noted above, the third respondent Society, while admitting the petitioner to its services on 01.09.2007 had categorically accepted the services of the petitioner with continuity of service, that means, agreeing to consider and count the service rendered by the petitioner in the second respondent Society. Having agreed to count the service rendered by the petitioner in the second respondent Society as the service rendered in the third respondent Society, it is not open for the third respondent to go back on it and to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate entitlements for payment of Gratuity under a social welfare legislation. Thus, it is incumbent on the part of the third respondent to count the service rendered by the petitioner in the second respondent Society as the service rendered in third respondent Society and based on such service, calculate the Gratuity of the petitioner, to which, he is otherwise entitled to and pay the same to him.11. At the same time, the second respondent Society which availed the services of the petitioner from 13.09.2000 till 31.08.2007 that is for 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 28477 of 2013about 7 years, cannot escape its liability to remit the corresponding contributions for the services rendered by the petitioner in the second respondent Society to enable the third respondent to settle the terminal benefits of the petitioner including the Gratuity.12. In the light of the above, this Court deem it appropriate and necessary to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to meet ends of justice. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:i.the second respondent is directed to remit the amounts payable to the petitioner towards Gratuity and Provident Fund, corresponding to the service rendered by the petitioner in the second respondent Society i.e., from 13.09.2000 to 31.08.2007 to the third respondent within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ii. Thereupon, the third respondent shall calculate the total amount of Gratuity to which, the petitioner is entitled to and pay the same together with other terminal benefits if any due and the Provident Fund amount by duly taking into consideration the entire services 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 28477 of 2013rendered by the petitioner in both the societies, within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter.13. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 07.08.2025Index : Yes/NoSpeaking order:Yes/NodnTo1.The Registrar Of Cooperative Societies (housing), Tamilnadu Housing Board Complex, No.435, Nandanam, Chennai 35. 2. The Special Officer,E-2729, Public Servants (General), Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd., Pudupalayam Main Road, Cuddalore -607 0013. The Special Officer,E-2731, Neyveli Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd., Indira Nagar, Neyveli 10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 28477 of 2013Mr.MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR , J dnWP No.28477 of 201307.08.202511/11