Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge of this court, dated 24.9.2010, made in W.P.No.10855 of 2008. 2. The writ petition had been filed challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 11.4.2008, passed in Revision Petition No.9527 of 2007. The petitioner had challenged the said order denying the request of the petitioner, for the payment of his retirement benefits, along with the interest thereon. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner, while he was working as the Secretary of Kelamangalam Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, had been placed under suspension, on contemplation of charges. Later he had been issued with a charge memo and he had been suspended from service, on 28.6.2007. Before the enquiry had been completed the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, on 30.6.2007. On the ground that the respondents cannot continue with the enquiry beyond the period of retirement, the petitioner had gone before the Revisional Authority, under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The Revision Petition filed by the petitioner had been allowed holding that no enquiry could be conducted against the petitioner after he had retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation. However, the Revisional Authority had observed that it would be open to the society concerned to proceed against the petitioner to recover the amount of loss caused to the society, by the petitioner. Accordingly, the second respondent society had initiated surcharge proceedings against the petitioner, under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. The petitioner had challenged the said proceedings before the Tribunal concerned, by way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, in CMA.CS Nos.19/2008, 10/2010 and 11/2010. 4. In such circumstances, the learned single Judge, in his order, dated 24.9.2010, made in W.P.No.10855 of 2008, had directed the Tribunal concerned to dispose of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The petitioner had also been directed to cooperate with the Tribunal for the disposal of the appeals. 5. From the report received from the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, dated 13.2.2013, it is noted that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, in CMA.CS No.19 of 2008 had been disposed of, on 21.11.2010, after a full fledged trial. The petitioner had also been directed to cooperate with the Tribunal for the disposal of the appeals. 5. From the report received from the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, dated 13.2.2013, it is noted that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, in CMA.CS No.19 of 2008 had been disposed of, on 21.11.2010, after a full fledged trial. CMA.CS Nos.10 and 11 of 2010, had been dismissed for default, on 5.10.2010. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeals had been restored on the file of the Tribunal and they have been listed for hearing, on merits. 6. The learned single Judge, by his order, dated 24.9.2010, had made it clear that in the event of the Tribunal disposing of the appeals filed by the petitioner, the second respondent shall disburse the terminal benefits due to the petitioner, without any further delay. 7. In view of the report submitted by the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, dated 13.2.2013, it is found that Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, in CMA.CS Nos.10 and 11 of 2010, are pending disposal on the file of the said Tribunal. It has also been stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that he had filed a Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P.No.855 of 2011, against the order passed by the Tribunal, in CMA.CS No.19 of 2008. This court had dismissed the said Civil Revision Petition, by its order, dated 7.9.2011, made in C.R.P (NPD) No.855 of 2011, making it clear that if there was any amount due to be paid by the petitioner, to the society, as per the surcharge order, it shall be deducted from the amount payable to the petitioner, if any, as retiral benefits. The said order had not been challenged by the petitioner. 8. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 24.9.2010. Hence, the writ appeal stands dismissed. However, we find it fit to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, in CMA.CS Nos.10 and 11 of 2010, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties in the said appeals are to co-operate with the Tribunal to dispose of the same, within the period stipulated by this court, by this order. No costs.