F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 18. 2003 passed in W.P.No.10291 of 2003.

2. The issue relates to payment of subsistence allowance payable to the appellant for the period of suspension pending disciplinary action.

3. The appellant was placed under suspension by the first respondent on 21. 1999 pending disciplinary action against him. Alleging non payment of subsistence allowance, the appellant preferred PSA No.2/02 and 3/02 claiming subsistence allowance for two different periods. By order, dated 17. 2002, the third respondent ordered a sum of Rs.12122/- in PSA.No.2/02 and Rs.53276/-in PSA No.3/02 to be payable by the first respondent to the appellant. Both the appellant and the first respondent preferred PAA Case No.5/02-1 and 5/02 before the second respondent. The second respondent also confirmed the order of the third respondent by his order, dated 22. 2003.

4. Aggrieved against the same, the first respondent preferred W.P.No.10291 of 2003. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by applying the decision of another learned Single Judge reported in 2002 4 CTC 339. In the said decision, it was held that a Secretary in a Bank to which the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 is applicable is an officer as defined in Section 2(19) of the said Act and therefore, he cannot be construed as an employee under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act. It was also held that since the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, is a special enactment, provisions of the Tamil Nadu Subsistence Allowance Act cannot be applied. Following the same, the impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the first respondent and set aside the orders passed by the second and third respondents.

5. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant has come forward with this writ appeal.

6. In this appeal, two questionsarise for consideration, namely:-

.a. Whether the ratio laid down by the learned single Judge in the decision reported in 2002 (4) CTC 339 to the effect that the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 is a special enactment and therefore, the Tamil Nadu payment of subsistence allowance Act will not be applicable to a Secretary, who has been defined as an officer under Section 2(19) of the 1983 Act is proper or not.

.b. If the Tamil Nadu payment of subsistence allowance Act applies, whether the first respondent can contend that the appellant will not fall under the definition of "employee" as defined under Section 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu payment of subsistence allowance Act.

7. In order to clarify the above legal issues, we sought the assistance of the Additional Advocate General Mr.P.S.Raman, who made his submissions with absolute clarity highlighting the various intricate position involved and also placing before us the various decisions touching upon the very question. After referring to the provisions contained in Section 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, (hereinafter called as Act 43 of 1981), and Section 2(19) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter called as Act 30 of 1983), which contains the respective definition clause of an "employee" and an "officer" under both the enactments referred to various decisions reported in AIR 1979 SC 1203 (The Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Vs. P.R.Mankad and another), AIR 1980 SC 2181(The Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Bahadur and others), AIR 1970 SC 245 (Co¬operative Central Bank Ltd., and others etc. Vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others etc.), AIR 1961 SC 1762 (Major E.G. Barsay Vs. State of Bombay), AIR 1966 SC 1931(Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur Vs. Thakuar Manmohan Dey and others), AIR 1968 SC 898 (Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and others Vs. Rao Baldev Singh and others), AIR 1999 SC 3907 (G