Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2045 (MAD)

G. Pandithurai & Others v. The Special officer, Agricultural Coop Bank, Ariyalur District & Others

2008-06-27

K.CHANDRU

body2008
Judgment :- These three writ petitioners are Secretaries of the respective Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank and they also belong to the common cadre. In the present case, they were suspended by the Controlling authority constituted under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.55 Co-operation Department dated 24.03.2000. The petitioners have challenged the said suspension orders in these writ petitions. 2. Pending the writ petitions, the petitioners have obtained interim stay. On behalf of the Special Officer, an impleading petition is filed in M.P.No.3 of 2008 in W.P.No.12143 of 2008. Even though Mr. C. Prakasam states that the Special Officer is not a necessary party, this Court is of the opinion that so long as the control of the Society vests with the Special Officer, the Secretary being an employee of the Society and as cadre control alone vests with the Controlling Authority, Society is a proper and necessary party in the writ petition. Hence, M.P.No.3 of 2008 is ordered. 3. In the present cases, it is against the suspension order the petitioners are aggrieved. They can only move the Registrar under Section 153 of the Act, failing which the Government under Section 154. The writ petitions are not maintainable in the light of the larger Bench judgment of this Court in the case of K. Marappan vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal and another rendered in 2006(4)CTC pg 689. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 4. Mr. C. Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not been paid subsistence allowance. This Court has already in more than one decision has held that the employees who are coming in the cadre covered by the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.55 Co-operation Department dated 24.03.2000 are entitled to subsistence allowance pending the enquiry. Therefore, the respondent here can very well direct the Special Officer to pay the subsistence allowance, if not paid already.