B.Sridharan vs Chairman Common cadre authority/Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38060

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J
B.Sridharan – Appellant
Versus
Chairman Common cadre authority/Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies – Respondent
WMP NO. 18178 OF 2026|WMP NO. 18180 OF 2026

Important Points

Court mandates compliance with prior order for retirement benefits despite objections, quashing non-compliant impugned order.

Subject

Service - Retirement Benefits

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Art.226
Payment of Gratuity Act: S.4(6)

Headnote

The petitioner, a retired employee of a cooperative society, sought quashing of an order denying retirement benefits including gratuity, provident funds, and leave encashments, citing Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and a surcharge under Section 87. Facts involve audit irregularities leading to delayed retirement clearance, prior court orders directing settlement of benefits with interest. The court found no pending disciplinary or criminal proceedings post-enquiry. Issues framed as entitlement to terminal benefits despite audit objections and compliance with prior judicial directives. Ratio decidendi emphasizes that impugned order displayed non-application of mind and apathy to court orders, effectively reviewing a positive mandate to settle benefits within three months. The writ petition is allowed; impugned order set aside, directing compliance with prior order by 08.06.2026.

Advocates:
For Petitioner(s): MR.C.Prakasam
For Respondent(s): Mr.Abhishek Murthy, GA, for R.1 and R.2, Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, GA for R.3

Table of Content
1. petitioner's service history, audit, enquiry clearance, no proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. prior writs and contempt led to quashing, fresh denial order. (Para 5)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in her proceedings No. Nil, dated 13.11.2025 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to disburse the petitioner’s retirement benefits like Gratuity, General Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, Encashment of Earned Leave and Encashment of Un-earned Leave on private affairs to the petitioner.”

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Salesman in the 3rd respondent Society on 01.11.1987. He was subsequently promoted as Clerk on 16.12.1992 and thereafter as Secretary on 15.03.1995. While the petitioner was serving as Secretary in the 3rd respondent Society, an Audit Report for the year 2017–2018 was submitted before the 2nd respondent. Upon perusal of the said Audit Report dated 27.06.2018, the 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated

29.06.2018, relieved the petitioner from service but did not permit him to retire. In the said proceedings, it was further stated that the petitioner would be permitted to retire from service after obtaining clearance of the said Audit Report.

3. On 05.10.2020, on the basis of the Audit Report dated 27.06.2018, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 19.05.2021. In the said report, the Enquiry Officer did not make any recommendation for initiating surcharge or criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Insofar as the disciplinary proceedings are concerned, the Enquiry Officer recommended that the same be dropped, as the petitioner had already retired from service in the year 2018. Thus, no disciplinary, criminal, or surcharge proceedings were pending against the petitioner. In spite of the same, the respondents have not come forward to disburse the petitioner’s retirement benefits.

4. On 02.05.2022 , the petitioner had given a representation to the respondents requesting disbursement of his retirement benefits, however, the same was not considered. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 27892 of 2022 before this Court, which was disposed of on 19.10.2022, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 02.05.2022.

5. Even after obtaining orders from this Court and producing the same before the 3rd respondent, no action was taken. Hence, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 954 of 2023, which was closed by this Court on 16.08.2023, recording that the orders of this Court had been complied with, as the respondent had passed an order dated 11.08.2023 on the petitioner’s representation dated 02.05.2022, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order, if aggrieved.

6. Thereafter, challenging the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated

11.08.2023, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 22340 of 2025. The said writ petition was allowed on 03.07.2025, quashing the order dated 11.08.2023 and directing the respondents to settle the petitioner’s eligible terminal benefits along with applicable statutory interest within a period of three months. Pursuant thereto, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 13.11.2025, refusing to disburse the petitioner’s retirement benefits on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to gratuity under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and that a surcharge order under Section 87 has been passed against him. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

8. A mere reading of the impugned order would clearly show the apathy to orders of this Court and also displays total non-application of mind on the part of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent appears to have sat in review of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 22340 of 20