JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner has projected the present Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent to consider on merits by disposing the written representation made by the Petitioner on 09.02.2012 within the stipulated time to be determined by this Court. 2. According to the Petitioner, he was working as Secretary in the Isukazhikatteri Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Isukazhikatteri, Thiruvannamalai Taluk & District. During the year 2008, he was terminated from service by the First Respondent on the basis of the Criminal Court convicting him in C.C.No.92/2006 and in this connection, the First Respondent / Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Thiruvannamalai Region, passed orders in reference No.Na.Ka.6472/08 PACB, dated 25.06.2008. 3. Being dissatisfied with the judgment rendered by the Criminal Court in C.C.No.92/2006, the Writ Petitioner (as an aggrieved/affected person) filed a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.79 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, Vellore, challenging his conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court under various Sections of Indian Penal Code. It comes to be known that he was awarded with the punishment of one year Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code and further he was directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment. In respect of the offence under Section 477(A) of Indian Penal Code, he was imposed with the punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and imposed with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of the said amount, he was directed to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. So far as the offence under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code was concerned, he was awarded with a Rigorous Imprisonment of one year and imposed with the fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment. The Appellate Court viz., the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court under Sections 408, 477(A) and 468 of Indian Penal Code and affirmed the imposition of fine amount of Rs.500/- in each cases. 4. The Appellate Court viz., the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court under Sections 408, 477(A) and 468 of Indian Penal Code and affirmed the imposition of fine amount of Rs.500/- in each cases. 4. It transpires that as against his termination order passed by the First Respondent, the Petitioner filed statutory Revision in terms of Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1983 on 10.12.2008. However, the said Revision was dismissed by the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies. He later preferred W.P.No.21855 of 2009 in calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the Second Respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.6472/08 PACB, dated 25.06.2008, which was confirmed by the First Respondent as per the proceedings Na.Ka. 84700/2009 Sa.Pa.1, dated 07.10.2009 and quashing the same and further he has sought for direction to the respondents to reinstate him into service with all backwages and other benefits. When W.P.No.21855 of 2009 came up for hearing on 09.09.2011, this Court was pleased to pass the following order: "Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner attempted to make a distinction that the petitioner was not imposed with any imprisonment, it is immaterial in the light of Rule 149(4) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, extracted above. This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Revisional Authority. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed." 5. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that he is entitled to receive Gratuity and Provident Fund, but the Respondents have not distributed his Gratuity and Provident Fund amount and in this regard, he made a written representation on 09.02.2012 before the Respondents. Even though the Respondents 1 and 2 have received his written representation, but the third Respondent refused to receive the same. It appears that some part of the amount namely, Rs.60,577/- was disbursed to the Petitioner as against total sum of Rs.4,48,498/-. 6. It is to be pointed out that the 'Gratuity' payable to an employee is a valuable right accrued to him. Per contra, it is not a Bounty. As a matter of fact, 'Gratuity' must be paid to an employee without any delay. Also that 'Payment of Gratuity Act' is a special enactment, which has an overriding effect over the 'Provident Fund Act'. Per contra, it is not a Bounty. As a matter of fact, 'Gratuity' must be paid to an employee without any delay. Also that 'Payment of Gratuity Act' is a special enactment, which has an overriding effect over the 'Provident Fund Act'. Further, 'Gratuity' of an employee ought to be paid irrespective of financial capacity as opined by this Court. 7. In view of the fact that the Petitioner has only sought for a limited prayer of issuance of direction by this Court to the First Respondent to consider his representation dated 09.02.2012, this Court, to prevent an aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice, directs the First Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 09.02.2012 in a fair, just, dispassionate and in an objective fashion and to pass a reasoned speaking order on merits (of course, after providing enough opportunity to the Petitioner herein by adhering to the principles of natural justice) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. To facilitate the First Respondent to pass necessary order within the time frame determined by this Court, this Court directs the Petitioner to submit a fresh copy of his representation dated 09.02.2012 to the Respondents within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there will be no orders as to costs.