The main legal point established in the judgment is that as per Section 79 of the Cooperative Societies Act, the gratuity amount cannot be withheld by the respondents, and objections regarding the irregular appointment of the petitioner were rejected.

The prayer in the Writ Petition is to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No. 7517/2007/Tha.Sa. dated 21.01.08 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to release petitioners gratuity amount of Rs.1,51,766/- with 12% interest per annum.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Salesman in Chinna Manali Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society. Thereafter on 12. 1981, the petitioner, on transfer, was appointed as a Secretary of the second respondent, Munjanur Primay Agricultural Cooperative Bank. He retired from service on 312. 2007. All his retirement benefits were paid to him by the second respondent except the Gratuity amount. The petitioner further states that he was informed that objections had been raised by the first respondent by his letter Na.Ka.7517/2007/Tha.sa dated 21. 2008 in respect of the very appointment of the petitioner as Secretary of the second respondent bank. To be precise, the objection was that the appointment of the petitioner as Secretary in the second respondent Co-operative Bank was irregular and therefore his salary should be withheld and the same could be realised only after regularistion of the service by the competent authority. Based on the said report of the first respondent, the second respondent by his letter dated 21. 2008 intimated that the petitioner has to work out his remedy through legal process to get the gratuity amount released in his favour. In those circumstances, the petitioner has now come forward with this Writ Petition seeking to quash the order of the first respondent and for further direction to the second respondent to pay the gratuity amount to him.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under section 79 of the Cooperative Societies Act, the gratuity amount is not liable to attachment nor be subjected to any other process of any Court or other authority. In view of the said clear position, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for payment of the Gratuity amount.

5. In the counter filed by the second respondent, it has been stated that the Gratuity amount was not paid to the petitioner because of the audit objection raised by the first respondent. Further, in paragraph 6 of the affidavit, it has been clearly admitted by the second respondent that the Bank has no right over the gratuity amount of its emplooyees and the employee by right is entitled to receive the same. The second respondent has further prayed for a suitable order in this matter.

6. The first respondent has filed a separate counter, wherein the first respondent has explained as to how the appointment of the petitioner as Secretary of the second respondent Bank is irregular. Therefore, according to the first respondent, the petitioner is not entitled to for payment of the gratuity amount.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

8. A plain reading of Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act would go to show that the gratuity amount cannot be proceeded with by any authority on any ground. Thus, statutarily, the petitioner is entitled to for payment of the gratuity amount and neither the first respondent nor the second respondent has got any power to withhold the same. But, in the counter filed by the first respondent, it has been stated that the very appointment of the petitioner is irregular to the post of Secretary, since he did not possess the necessary qualification.

9. In my considered opinion, it is too late for the first respondent to raise such objection. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Secretary in the year 1981. After 26 years of his successful service, it is not at all proper to come forward with the opinion for the first time that his appointment made