Judgment : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle the remaining retirement benefits such as Provident Fund, Gratuity, surrender leave etc., to the petitioner, by calculating the same, on the basis of the entire basic pay and the corresponding Dearness Allowance fixed to the post of Secretary of the third respondent bank, without making any deduction. The Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle the remaining retirement benefits such as Provident Fund, Gratuity, surrender leave etc., to the petitioner, by calculating the same, on the basis of the entire basic pay and the corresponding Dearness Allowance fixed to the post of Secretary of the third respondent bank, without making any deduction. 2. Petitioner retired from service of the third respondent on 310. 2003. While he was in service, he agreed for receiving 50% of the wages under settlement arrived at Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It appears that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a punishment of censure was passed on 210. 2004. On superannuation, the terminal benefits were settled. However, a portion of the amount was appropriated by way of recovery proceedings dated 210. 2004. Aggrieved by such proceedings, a representation dated 111. 2004 was made to the third respondent to reconsider the proceedings dated 210. 2004 and on failure to do so, the present writ petition has been filed for mandamus to direct the respondents to grant all the benefits in terms of the prayer in the writ petition. 3. Even though there was a direction by this court to file counter-affidavit, no counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents till date. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner now fairly states that in view of Larger Bench decision in K. Marappan – vs. - Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies reported in (2006)4 MLJ 641 , no writ is maintainable as against the third respondent Co-operative Society for the relief prayed and in view of the above decision, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief before this court, particularly where there is an effective and efficacious alternative remedy. 5. 5. The petitioner in this case has a remedy in terms of Section 153 of Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 before the competent authority, the first respondent Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Erode Region, Erode. The writ petition was filed on 8. 2005, admitted on 8. 2005 and finally disposed off today. The petitioner, however, is entitled to seek appropriate remedy before the revisional authority, the first respondent as provided under Section 153 of Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The first respondent shall, if so approached, take into consideration the period during which the writ petition was pending before this Court as period to be excluded for the purpose of limitation, if the claim is otherwise in order. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the authority as early as possible and canvass his grievance on merits. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.