Suspended Co-op Clerk Must Seek Gratuity Through Registrar; Madras HC Orders Decision Within 3 Months Of Application

The petitioner, a clerk employed by a primary agricultural co-operative credit society, was placed under suspension on 30 June 2025 and was not permitted to retire.

He sought to quash the Administrator’s proceedings and obtain his retirement benefits, relying on Section 79(2)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and a Division Bench decision concerning statutory protection for provident-fund and gratuity benefits.

The respondents objected that the writ petition was not maintainable and that the petitioner should pursue the statutory remedy under Section 153.

Section 79(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 permits a registered society, where the Payment of Gratuity Act does not apply, to provide for gratuity in its bye-laws on the rates and conditions specified therein; Section 79(2)(c) protects an established gratuity fund from attachment or other process of a court or authority, but does not itself prescribe the mode or conditions of payment.

Under the larger Bench ruling in K. Marappan v. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 2006 (4) CTC 689, bye-laws do not have the force of law, and service conditions founded only on bye-laws generally cannot be enforced by writ; statutory public duties may be enforced, but the Court ordinarily will not exercise Article 226 jurisdiction where an alternative remedy is available.

The Court also considered the later Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 3513 of 2023, dated 21 September 2026, concerning service-related claims governed by co-operative society bye-laws and the need to exhaust statutory remedies.

The Court noted that, although Section 79(2)(c) protects a gratuity fund from attachment or other process, the petitioner’s entitlement to payment and the conditions governing it arise under the Society’s bye-laws pursuant to Section 79(1); Section 79 does not itself set out a payment procedure.

It therefore did not treat the petitioner’s claim as one conclusively established by a statutory right to immediate payment.

In light of Marappan, the later Division Bench decision, and the available remedy under Section 153, the Court declined to adjudicate the claim in the writ petition.

If the petitioner applies for payment of gratuity, the Joint Registrar must consider and decide the application in light of Section 79 within three months of its filing.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.