Judgment :- The petitioner filed this writ petition with the following prayers. i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the 2nd respondent to grant the pension to the petitioner forthwith. ii) To issue a direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to disburse provident fund, gratuity, arrears of pay calculated on the basis of Government order dated 23.08.2005 with interest thereon within a time limit. The petitioner was working with the first respondent - society. While working so, Ext.P1 show cause notice was issued against the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service on the basis of the disciplinary proceeding already initiated against him. As evident from Ext. R1(c) dated 27.2.2006 the petitioner filed an arbitration case as ARC. No. 15/2006 before the Co-Operative Arbitration Court against Ext. P1 notice. The above notice and the proceedings taken against the petitioner were challenged in ARC No. 15/2006. In the above arbitration case an IA was also filed for staying the further proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 27.12.2006. Arbitration Court had granted interim stay. In the meanwhile the first respondent-society after having conducted the enquiry and on the decision taken by the said committee, had issued Ext. R1 (e) by which service of the petitioner has been terminated. In the meanwhile the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2006. Now the petitioner submits that since the proceedings initiated against him was stayed by the Arbitration Court, the order issued by the first respondent, dismissing him from service is not sustainable and the prayer in the writ petition is that he wants to get the pension. Now a counter affidavit is also filed for and on behalf of the first respondent and this court also heard the counsel for the second respondent - Pension Board. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – Pension Board submits that as and when papers are received from the first respondent, necessary orders will be passed as per clause 18(2) of the pension scheme and whether the petitioner is entitled for pension or not will depend on the order to be passed by the Arbitrator. Now the question to be decided is that whether the show cause notice issued by the first respondent can be challenged before the Arbitration Court and the interim order passed as evident from Ext.P1 is sustainable or not. Now the question to be decided is that whether the show cause notice issued by the first respondent can be challenged before the Arbitration Court and the interim order passed as evident from Ext.P1 is sustainable or not. In the light of the dismissal order passed by the first respondent as evidence from Ext. R1 (e), this court is of the view that the validity of the show cause notice alone cannot be considered. It is left to the petitioner to challenge Ext. R1 (e) before the appropriate authority. In this context the counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not served Ext. R1(e), even though the counsel for the first respondent submits that it was already sent to him within 3 days of passing of the order. However, it is appropriate for the first respondent to give a copy of Ext. R1(e) to the petitioner within 2 weeks from today. Come to the merit of the contention of this case, this court is of the view that since the petitioner is dismissed from service by Ext. R1 (e), that order has to be challenged before the appropriate authority. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is closed without considering the contention raised. With regard to the stand taken by the second respondent - Board can be reconsidered on getting appropriate orders from the authority deals with the dismissal order passed by the first respondent.