ORDER Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the respondent, dated 31.3.2010, is arbitrary and illegal, as it is contrary to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner is not liable to attachment or be subject to any other process of any Court or other authority, as per Section 79 (2)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent is liable to be set aside. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court, in MARAPPAN K. Vs. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NAMAKKAL, ( 2006 (4) CTC 689 ). However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that it may be open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order of the respondent, dated 31.3.2010, before the appropriate forum or authority, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative societies Act, 1983, and the rules framed thereunder. The order passed by the respondent, who is the Special Officer of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, Chennai, cannot be challenged by the petitioner before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had also pointed out that the gratuity payable to the petitioner shall be forfeited, as per Clause 6 of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. As such, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as per the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court, in MARAPPAN K. Vs. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NAMAKKAL, ( 2006 (4) CTC 689 ). However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order, dated 31.3.2010, before the appropriate forum or authority, in the manner known to law. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.