Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed, as a Junior Chemist, in the second respondent society, on 2.7.1982. Later, she had been promoted, as an Assistant Chemist, during the year, 1992, and thereafter, promoted as a Senior Chemist. While so, she had resigned from service, due to the untimely demise of her husband. Thereafter, the petitioner had rejoined in service, as a Senior Chemist, in the second respondent society, in the year, 2002, based on the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 26.6.2002. By the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 6.6.2005, the petitioner had been granted the time scale of pay of Rs.5500-175-9000, along with the usual allowances. The individual pay of the petitioner had been fixed at Rs.6,725/-, with effect from 1.1.2005. While so, in the month of December, 2002, the petitioner had been posted, as a Senior Chemist, in the Coonoor Branch of the second respondent Society. On 9.7.2008, the petitioner had made a detailed representation seeking fixation of her scale of pay, taking into consideration of her past services rendered in the second respondent society. By the proceedings, dated 12.7.2008, the second respondent had informed the petitioner that the Commissioner of Industries and Director of Industries and Commerce had, by his proceedings, dated 24.1.2008, had informed that the appointment of the petitioner was irregular and that she has to be terminated from service. However, the second respondent, by his proceedings, dated 26.3.2008 and 23.5.2008, had brought to the notice of the first respondent the necessity of the petitioner in continuing in service. It had also been informed that the appropriate directions would be issued to regularise the service of the petitioner, at the appropriate time. 3. It has also been stated that the second respondent had informed the petitioner that appropriate action would be taken to grant the annual increments only after the service of the petitioner had been regularised. It had also been stated that the petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 2.9.2008, to the first respondent, for getting the service benefits, which were being granted to the other employees of the second respondent society. Thereafter, the first respondent had issued the proceedings, dated 31.12.2008, regularising the service of the petitioner and for granting other service benefits and privileges. It had also been stated that the petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 2.9.2008, to the first respondent, for getting the service benefits, which were being granted to the other employees of the second respondent society. Thereafter, the first respondent had issued the proceedings, dated 31.12.2008, regularising the service of the petitioner and for granting other service benefits and privileges. While so, the second respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 26.8.2011, stating that a sum of Rs.13,000/-had been fixed, as the consolidated pay of the petitioner, per month, and that her appointment in service would be on contract basis, for one year, from 26.6.2011 to 25.6.2012. Thereafter, consequential proceedings had also been issued, on 5.9.2011 and 10.9.2011. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned proceedings, dated 26.8.2011, had been issued by the second respondent, contrary to the proceedings, dated dated 31.12.2008, issued by the first respondent, without any notice having been issued and without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. It had also been stated that the consequential proceedings, dated 5.9.2011 and 10.9.2011, had also been issued, pursuant to the proceedings, dated 26.8.2011. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted that the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent are illegal, as they have been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the first respondent had issued the proceedings, dated 31.12.2008, directing the second respondent to sanction annual increment, leave-surrender, gratuity, societys provident fund contributions and other service benefits to the petitioner, as she had been reappointed, as a senior chemist, in the second respondent laboratory, and that she is entitled to the said benefits like the other regular employees of the society as she stands regularised, as on 1.1.2005, the date on which she had been placed on time-scale of pay. While so, it is not open to the second respondent to pass the impugned proceedings, fixing the pay of the petitioner at Rs.13,000/-, per month, on consolidated basis, stating that her service is based on a contract, for a period of one year, from 26.6.2011 to 25.6.2012. 7. While so, it is not open to the second respondent to pass the impugned proceedings, fixing the pay of the petitioner at Rs.13,000/-, per month, on consolidated basis, stating that her service is based on a contract, for a period of one year, from 26.6.2011 to 25.6.2012. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent society had submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the proceedings of the second respondent society, is not maintainable, in view of the decision of the larger bench of this Court, made in K.Marappan Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal and another ( 2006(4) CTC 689 ). 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had also submitted that the petitioner, who had resigned from service, in the year, 1995, had been reinstated in service on 26.6.2002, as a Senior Chemist, on contract basis, for a period of two years, from 26.6.2002, to 25.6.2004, on a consolidated pay of Rs.9,000/-, per month. Thereafter, the salary of the petitioner had been fixed on a time scale of pay and subsequent increments had also been given. While so, the first respondent had issued the proceedings, dated 31.12.2008, directing the second respondent to grant the service benefits to the petitioner, which are available to the other employees of the second respondent society, stating that the service of the petitioner had been regularized, as on 1.1.2005, the date on which she had been placed on the time scale of pay. However, the said proceedings of the first respondent had not been implemented. Thereafter, based on the direction issued by the first respondent, the second respondent had passed the impugned proceedings, dated 26.8.2011, and the consequential proceedings, dated 5.9.2011 and 10.9.2011. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had further submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned proceedings of the first and the second respondents, it is open to her to challenge the same before the appropriate authority or forum, as per the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and the Rules framed thereunder. However, it is not open to the petitioner to agitate the matter before this Court, by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction, by way of a writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. However, it is not open to the petitioner to agitate the matter before this Court, by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction, by way of a writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it is found that the impugned proceedings had been issued by the second respondent, pursuant to the direction issued by the first respondent, without following the principles and natural justice. No notice had been issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of personal hearing had been given to her before the impugned proceedings had been passed by the second respondent. 11. The benefits that had accrued to the petitioner, pursuant to the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 31.12.2008, in Rc.No.4216/ICF1/2007, had been modified, to the disadvantage of the petitioner, by the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent, dated 26.8.2011. The service benefits, which had been granted in favour of the petitioner, including the fixing of the time scale of pay, by way of the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 31.12.2008, had been modified, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, the impugned proceedings had been passed by the second respondent, based on the direction issued by the first respondent and therefore, they are only consequential in nature. 12. In such circumstances, this court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 26.8.2011 and consequential proceedings, dated 5.9.2011 and 10.9.2011. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the respondents to modify or revoke the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 31.12.2008, issued in Rc.No.4216/ICF1/2007, if so advised, as per the procedures established by law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. It is also made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all the issues available to her, as per law, during the personal hearing to be given to her, as per the directions issued by this Court, by this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.