Terminal benefits of a retired employee cannot be withheld on the grounds of failure to recover a decree amount from third parties, especially when no disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against the employee.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by 1st respondent in Na.Ka.2072/2024 Tho. Va.Sa. dated 28.06.2024 and quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to pay the petitioners balance retirement benefits of sum Rs.9,24,354/- with 10 percentage statutory interest of Rs.1,23,585/- from the date of retirement i.e., 30.06.2024 till the payment is made within stipulated time as fixed by this Honble Court.

ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 28.06.2024 and seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner’s balance retirement benefits amounting to Rs.9,24,354/- along with statutory interest at 10% amounting to Rs.1,23,585/- from the date of retirement i.e., 30.06.2024 till the date of actual payment, within the stipulated time to be fixed by this Honble Court.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined as a Clerk in the 2nd respondent Society on 15.06.1990, and his services were regularised on 01.07.1991. Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Clerk, Assistant Secretary and Secretary. The petitioner was permitted to retire from service on 30.06.2024, however, his full retirement benefits were not settled, and the balance retirement benefits amounting to Rs.9,24,354/- were withheld. The denial of retirement benefits by the 2nd respondent is illegal, on the ground that the members were not paid the loan amount, for which the respondents cannot retain the petitioner’s retirement benefits. The petitioner made representations on 14.07.2024, 08.11.2024, 14.03.2025 and 03.10.2025, however, the same have not been considered till date. Hence the present writ petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, even assuming there was any default in recovering the decree amount, the same can be recovered from the existing employees, therefore, withholding the terminal benefits of the petitioner is not sustainable. In the present case, no disciplinary proceedings or criminal case is pending against the petitioner, and withholding the entire terminal benefits on the ground of non-recovery of the decree amount is not sustainable. However, the decree amount, if any, can be recovered from the existing employees. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

4.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent did not dispute the facts submitted by the petitioner. However, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted her written instructions wherein. in paragraph 5.2 and 5.3, it is stated as follows:

5.2. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 15.06.1990 in the respondent Society and subsequently, promoted as Senior Clerk on 01.12.2012, Assistant Secretary on 15.12.2016 and Secretary on 02.01.2024, and was posted at Pillikkalpalayam Society. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2024 as the Secretary of the Society.

5.3. It is submitted that while the petitioner was working as Secretary in-charge in the 2nd respondent Society from 16.08.2013 to 30.11.2019, a Title Deed Pledge Loan amounting to Rs.3,11,355/- was pending realization till his retirement and thereby causing a loss of Rs.3,11,355/- and interest of Rs.6,12,999/- (upto 30.06.2024) totalling a sum of Rs.9,24,354/- to the Society. After filing an Arbitration claim u/s.90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 , Award was obtained on two Title Deed Pledge Loan on 14.12.2007 and 07.06.2012 during the tenure of the petitioner. As per