JUDGMENT D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J. 1. The petitioner was working as a Secretary in the third respondent Society. He was dismissed from service on 23.06.2007. If the dismissal order attains finality, then it is doubtful as to whether the petitioner would claim the terminal benefits. But it is not so. 2. The petitioner earlier filed writ petition in W.P. No. 32697 of 2007 to quash the dismissal order. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.10.2007. 3. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 10.10.2007 in W.P. No. 32697 of 2007, the petitioner filed writ appeal in W.A. No. 1521 of 2007 and a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal on 14.12.2007 and set aside the dismissal order with liberty to the competent authority to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner in accordance with law. 4. While so, the third respondent Society permitted the petitioner to retire from service on 01.02.2008, with effect from 30.06.2007, when he reached the age of superannuation. Here again, having permitted the petitioner to retire from service, the third respondent Society could not proceed against the petitioner. Armed with the order dated 14.12.2007 in W.A. No. 1521 of 2007, they could not have permitted him to retire from service. 5. But, the third respondent society permitted the petitioner to retire from service and thereafter, issued a fresh charge memo dated 09.09.2008. 6. The issuance of fresh charge memo became the subject matter of W.P. No. 1147 of 2009. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 11.12.2009, against which, the petitioner filed writ appeal in W.A. No. 907 of 2010. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal in W.A. No. 907 of 2010 on 25.08.2011 and set aside the fresh charge memo dated 09.09.2008. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not paid terminal benefits, such as gratuity, provident fund, earned leave benefits and caution deposit etc. Since the terminal benefits were not given, the petitioner made an application dated 16.07.2012 to the second respondent seeking direction to the third respondent to pay the terminal benefits. The said application dated 16.07.2012 could be treated as a revision petition filed under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. However, the second respondent has not chosen to pass orders on the revision petition dated 16.07.2012, referred to above. The said application dated 16.07.2012 could be treated as a revision petition filed under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. However, the second respondent has not chosen to pass orders on the revision petition dated 16.07.2012, referred to above. It is stated by the petitioner that there was no surcharge proceedings pending against him. 8. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay retirement benefits of Rs. 4,38,637/- with 9% interest from the date of retirement to till payment. 9. A counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent refuting the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. 10. Heard both sides. 11. In my view, even if there is surcharge proceedings pending or the same got finalised, the same cannot be a reason to withhold gratuity or provident fund. There is a statutory protection given under Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The gratuity fund shall be established by the Society, whenever the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is not applicable to the Society, as per Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. Gratuity payable from the said fund is protected under Section 79 of the Act as the gratuity is protected under Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. A similar protection is given to the provident fund under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. In either way, the third respondent Society cannot deprive the terminal benefits. The second respondent has not chosen to issue a proper direction to the third respondent to pay terminal benefits to the petitioner. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, which reads as follows: "78. Provident Fund – (1) A registered society not being an establishment to which the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Central Act XIX of 1952) applies, may establish a Provident Fund for the benefit of its employees to which shall be credited all contributions made by the employees and the society in accordance with the by-laws. (2) A Provident Fund established by a registered society under sub-section (1) shall be invested in the financing bank, but shall not – (a) Be used in the business of the society. (2) A Provident Fund established by a registered society under sub-section (1) shall be invested in the financing bank, but shall not – (a) Be used in the business of the society. (b) Form part of the assets of the society. (c) Be liable to attachment or be subject to any other process of any Court or other authority. 79. Gratuity Fund – (1) A registered society not being an establishment to which the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Central Act 39 of 1972) applies, may provide in its by laws for payment of gratuity to the employees at such rates and on such conditions as may be specified in the by-laws and such society may establish a Gratuity Fund or make other arrangements for the purpose. (2) A Gratuity Fund, if any, established by a registered society under sub-section (1) shall be invested in the financing bank, but shall not – (a) Be used in the business of the society. (b) Form part of the assets of the society. (c) Be liable to attachment or be subject to any other process of any Court or other authority." 12. On the other hand, when the petitioner sent his revision petition dated 16.07.2012 to the third respondent, the third respondent Society has sent a reply dated 25.07.2012 stating that since the petitioner filed cases after cases before this Court, he cannot be paid terminal benefits. In this regard, the relevant passage from the said reply dated 25.07.2012 of the third respondent is extracted hereunder:- "Tamil" 13. The third respondent society condemned the petitioner in its reply for having approached the Courts seeking relief. In my view, such a reply by the third respondent Society is condemnable in uncertain terms. No person can be condemned for seeking legal remedy before this Court or any other Court. The right to approach a Court of Law is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. In this case, the petitioner was successful in both the occasions when he approached this Court. Hence, the third respondent Society is bound to pay terminal benefits with interest. I am not determining the quantum of amount payable by the third respondent Society. 14. The right to approach a Court of Law is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. In this case, the petitioner was successful in both the occasions when he approached this Court. Hence, the third respondent Society is bound to pay terminal benefits with interest. I am not determining the quantum of amount payable by the third respondent Society. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to dispose the writ petition by directing the second respondent to pass orders on the petition dated 16.07.2012 treating it as a revision petition filed under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. 15. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to pass orders on the revision petition dated 16.07.2012, in the light of the observations made above, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.