P.N. Ravindran, J.

1. The petitioner is a former employee of the third respondent co-operative society. He entered service as a Lower Division Clerk on 15.4.1960 and attained the age of superannuation on 31.8.1998. He was a member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 with effect from 1.2.1966.

2. While the petitioner was working as Branch Manager, a theft occurred in the Othara branch where the petitioner was working, on 10.6.1994. By order passed on 25.6.1994 the petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary action was initiated against him. Later, by order passed on 28.8.1996, he was dismissed from service. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of dismissal from service in appeal before the Managing Committee of the third respondent society. He thereafter unsuccessfully moved the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies under rule 176 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. His appeal to the Government was also dismissed. He, thereupon, filed O.P.No.1713 of 2000 in this Court. Though by judgment delivered on 20.3.2001 the learned single judge was pleased to set aside the order of dismissal from service for procedural lapses, the learned single Judge reserved liberty with the third respondent society to initiate fresh proceedings.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single judge, the petitioner as well as the third respondent society filed W.A.Nos.1340 and 2111 of 2001 respectively in this Court. While the writ appeals were pending, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. The writ appeals were thereafter disposed of by judgment delivered on 4.1.2002. The Division Bench held that as the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, interests of justice will be met, if the petitioner is paid all consequential benefits and 50 % of the back wages. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. Nos.1340 of 2001 and 2111 of 2001 is extracted below:-

"We heard both sides. Having regard to the facts of the case, we suggested to the parties to settle the dispute. We thought such a course will be suitable to avoid the agony of remand, passing of a fresh resolution and further statutory proceedings against them. Counsel on both sides consulted their parties and submitted before us that this Court may pass appropriate orders in the matter. We find that the writ petitioner has already retired from service. Except the present incident, his service was blemishless. The criminal court has already acquitted the petitioner in the criminal case finding that he has no involvement. We find that the explanation of the writ petitioner that he trusted his colleagues and believed their words and therefore landed in the trouble is plausible. If we accept the contention of the petitioner, he will be deemed to be in service and entitled to all consequential benefits. In any view of the matter, since the members of the disciplinary committee also participated in the Board Meeting which considered the appeal, the appellate order is a nullity and the proceedings will definitely have to commence afresh from the stage of hearing the appeal. Having regard to the facts of the case and taking into account the views expressed at the Bar, we affirm the judgment of the learned single Judge to the extent it quashes the impugned orders. But we vacate the direction to take a fresh decision in the disciplinary proceedings, since the employee has already retired from service in August, 1998. We feel that interest of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the Bank to pay the petitioner all consequential benefits with fifty per cent of the wages. We do so. The Bank will pay fifty per cent of the arrears of pay and pay other benefits in full payable by it to the writ petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."

4. The petitioner had in the meanwhile filed W.P.(C) No.25992 of 2003 in this Court claiming the pension under the Ke