B.NARAYANA Vs. PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a retired Secretary of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited (first respondent). He seeks for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the first respondent in not paying the retirement benefits to the petitioner as illegal and unjust and to pass consequential direction to the first respondent to pay arrears of salary and retirement benefits to the petitioner including provident fund, encashment of Earned Leave, and Gratuity etc., together with interest at 18% per annum.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was paid salary of Rs. 12,500/- per month from the time of his appointment in 1980 till 2003. The salary was subsequently reduced to Rs. 3,000/- per month in 2003. In 2005, the salary of the petitioner was increased to Rs. 7,000/- per month. The petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2008 with a salary of Rs. 7,000/- per month. Retirement benefits had not been paid to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent on 25.8.2008. An order was passed by the first respondent ordering that all the monies due to the petitioner shall be paid to the petitioner. However, the pension and other retirement benefits had not been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner had no alternative except to approach the second and third respondents. The second respondent passed orders in RC.No. 706/08-C addressed to the first respondent herein directing the first respondent to pay arrears of salary, gratuity, provident fund and other benefits to which the petitioner is entitled to with the prior approval of the Executive Committee in accordance with the bye laws. The petitioner consequently seeks for the reliefs prayed for.

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent contended that as the first respondent is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, a writ petition will not lie against the first respondent-Society. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon SMT. BHARATHI VS. THE REGISTRAT OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BANGALORE, 1990 AIR(Kar) 173 . In that case it was observed on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF VAISH DEGREE COLLEGE V. LAKSHMI NARAIN, 1976 AIR(SC) 888 that no direction can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution since the Cooperative Society is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. In P. BHASKARAM VS. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL (CO-OPERATION) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM, 1988 AIR(Ker) 75 , a Full Bench considered the issue more elaborately and held at paragraphs 29 and 30 as under: