Judgment :- 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 3rd respondent/Musuri Co-operative Primary Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd., to disburse the terminal benefits of the petitioner as per the last drawn pay scale and fix in accordance with the 12(3) settlement dated 13.04.1999 as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The petitioner/T.Narayannan, joined the service of the 3rd respondent Bank on 07.08.1968 as a Clerk. Subsequently, he was promoted as Secretary (in-charge) and after completing nearly 36 years of service in the said Bank, he retired from service on 30.06.2003. The Board of Directors was elected by the members of the 3rd respondent Bank. During their tenure, the management reached a settlement under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, by fixing the revised pay-scale to the employees of the Musuri Co-operative Primary Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. 3. Pursuant to the 12(3) settlement, the petitioner also received the pay scales and, finally, on the date of his retirement also the 3rd respondent had disbursed the terminal benefits, namely, gratuity and in respect of Employees Provident Fund, only to the extent of Rs.2,33,893/- out of total eligible amount of Rs.4,49,629/- was paid as per the petitioners last drawn salary and the said respondent decided to retain the balance sum of Rs.2,15,736/- by citing an undated advice letter of the Regional Manager (in-charge) of Tamil Nadu Co-operative State Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Trichirapalli without assigning any reason and retained a sum of Rs.14,983.50/- towards Earned Leave out of total eligible amount of Rs.85,710/- by citing G.O.Ms.No.186, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 16.08.2000 through a resolution passed by the 3rd respondent Bank, dated 22.08.2003. 4. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent has wrongly applied G.O.Ms.No.186, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 16.08.2000, while retaining the balance terminal benefits as the same was never given effect to in the respondent Bank at any time during his service, as a result of which, the petitioner has been put to grave financial loss and on that basis, he filed the present writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 3rd respondent for disbursing the terminal benefits of the petitioner as per the last drawn pay scale and fixed in accordance with the 12(3) settlement dated 13.04.1999 as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 & 2 submits that the petitioner, no doubt, was enjoying the benefit of pay scale on the basis of the 12 (3) settlement reached on 13.04.1999. Though the 12(3) settlement reached the term of five years, after the expiry of the above said 12(3) settlement dated 25.10.1996, the then Board of the 3rd respondent Bank by its resolution dated 13.04.1999 allowed to enter fresh 12(3) settlement without the approval of the Government and enhanced the salary of employees. The Government issued a G.O.Ms.No.186, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 16.08.2000, for streamlining the pay anomaly among staff working in Co-operative Societies which will have the effect of binding upon both the employees working in the 3rd respondents Bank as well as officials managing the 3rd respondent. Further, the petitioner joined as a Clerk in the 3rd respondent Bank. Later on, he was promoted as Secretary (in-charge) and finally, he retired from service on 30.06.2003. On 26.08.2003, the petitioner also on the basis of the said G.O.Ms.No.186, received all the terminal benefits amounting to Rs.3,77,519/-under the heads of surrender leave salary, gratuity and insurance salary scheme. Again, on 14.06.2004, the petitioner also received EPF (Employees Provident Fund) amount of Rs.2,33,893/-, without any protest/objection. While so, the petitioner has no right whatsoever to claim salary under 12(3) settlement, dated 13.04.1999 which is running contrary to G.O.Ms.No.186, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 16.08.2000 and also against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and on that basis he prayed for the dismissal of the present writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 7. 6. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 7. The petitioner while working as Secretary (in-charge) was enjoying the benefit of pay and other service benefits under 12(3) settlement reached between the employees working as well as the 3rd respondent Bank on the basis of the last drawn salary. Subsequently, after the expiry of the 12(3) settlement, when the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.186, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 16.08.2000, not only, the 3rd respondent Bank but also the employees working in the 3rd respondent Bank are legally bound by the direction issued by G.O.Ms.No.186, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 16.08.2000 inasmuch as the G.O.Ms.No.186, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 16.08.2000, issued by the Government will prevail over the irregular settlement reached under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act. Further the 12(3) settlement was made without prior approval of the Government as required under Rule 149(1) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 and therefore, the petitioner has no right whatsoever to claim under 12(3) settlement dated 13.04.1999 which is not only against the said G.O.Ms.No.186, but also against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act & Rules made thereunder. 8. Further, when the petitioner retired on 30.06.2003, since he received all the terminal benefits amounting to Rs.3,77,519/-under the heads of surrender leave salary, gratuity and insurance salary scheme and again on 14.06.2004, the petitioner also received EPF, (Employees Provident Fund) amount of Rs.2,33,893/-there is no substance in the Writ Petition. 9. Therefore, since the petitioner has received the terminal benefits on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.186, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 16.08.2000, he has no right to claim the misconceived benefit under 12(3) settlement dated 13.04.1999 which no longer exists. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. In view of the above reasons, the impleading application (W.P.M.P.No.1906 of 2008) does not carry any merit. Hence, the impleading application is also dismissed. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.46006 of 2004 is closed.