The court determined that the petitioner is entitled to salary payments while revising procedures are pending, upholding justice for employees amidst procedural delays.

ORDER

The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking a mandamus to the third respondent to reinstate him in service, pursuant to the orders of the second respondent dated 14.10.2025 and to pay him the salary due from 14.10.2025 to 28.02.2026 with interest at 12% per annum.

2. The facts that led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows :

(a)The petitioner was appointed as Assistant in the 3^rd respondent Bank on 08.01.2001 on compassionate ground, and was promoted as Assistant Manager on 22.06.2009 and as Manager on 06.03.2013. He has rendered 23 years of satisfactory service.

(b) In 2023, Tmt.V.S.Gomathi assumed office as Administrator in the 3^rd respondent Bank. On 19.04.2023, she issued a charge memo against the petitioner, to which, the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation on 25.04.2023 denying the charges. Despite which, a domestic enquiry was conducted and order of suspension was issued on 09.07.2024, and ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 30.09.2024.

(c) Challenging the same, the petitioner had preferred a revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, before the second respondent. Since no order was passed in the revision, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.12558 of 2025. This Court was pleased to allow the writ petition and directed the second respondent to pass orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the second respondent passed an order on 14.10.2025, setting aside the order of dismissal and held that the punishment imposed by the 3^rd respondent is disproportionate and accordingly, directed the 3^rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service, and however, it modified the punishment to one “No work, No pay” till reinstatement and directed to stop increment for the next three years with cumulative effect.”

(d) Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner had submitted several representations for reinstating him in service and to pay the salary. However, the 3^rdrespondent failed to comply with the order. The petitioner later came to learn that the said Administrator had recommended to file a revision before the Government against the order dated 14.10.2025. Therefore, the petitioner's representation was not considered.

(e) Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice dated 29.01.2026 from the

2^ndrespondent intimating that the 3^rdrespondent-Bank had filed a review petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, and the petitioner was directed to submit his written statement. In the review petition, the authorities have not obtained an order of stay.

Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid relief.

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that he was without employment and salary for over 17 months, and hence, he finds it very difficult to maintain his family. The petitioner would submit that since no order of stay was obtained by the 3^rd respondent-Bank, it is duty bound to pay the salary to him from 14.10.2025. But the respondents have neither reinstated him into service nor paid him the salary.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

5.Admittedly, the second respondent by its order dated 14.10.2025, has set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Bank. Even thereafter, despite his several representations, the 3^rd respondent-Bank had not reinstated the petitioner into service. That apart, even the representations of the petitioner dated 10.11.2025 and 18.12.2025 to the first respondent did not evoke any response. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. The first respondent would submit that they have preferred a r