Judgment : 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of certitiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the fourth respondent dated 12.03.2014 and direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.3,25,370/-to the Petitioner. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as Junior Assistant in the fourth respondent Society. He stated that he is liable to be paid a sum of Rs.3,25,470/-. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition in W.P.(md).No.7502 of 2004, praying for a direction to release the fund payable to the Society, in respect of completed construction at Uzhavar Santhai, Melur, Madurai District, so that the petitioner could receive the same from the fourth respondent. The writ petition was disposed of by issuing certain direction. Thereafter, it appears that the Society is under liquidation and the same was considered by the respondent and by the impugned order, the request for payment of the amount has been rejected. 3. The petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, without affording any opportunity to him to cross-examine the Assistant Manager. Further, it is stated by the petitioner that by taking advantage of the death of the one Block Manager, the respondents are trying to deny the petitioner's legal entitlement. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent denying and disputing all the averments made in the writ petition. It is stated in the counter affidavit that though the petitioner appeared for the enquiry, he did not seek for any opportunity to cross-examine the Assistant Manager (Administration) and no such stand was taken in the written statement of the petitioner or at the time of oral enquiry on 10.04.2013. Further, several factual details have been given in the counter, more particularly in paragraph No.4 and 5 of the counter affidavit, by which the petitioners claim has been denied. 5. It is to be noted that the petitioner was an employee of the fourth respondent. The claim made is a money claim, in respect of the construction activity done for the Melur Uzahavar Santhai and expenses. Hence, there is serious dispute with regard to petitioner's entitlement and the respondent also denied the allegations made by the petitioner. 5. It is to be noted that the petitioner was an employee of the fourth respondent. The claim made is a money claim, in respect of the construction activity done for the Melur Uzahavar Santhai and expenses. Hence, there is serious dispute with regard to petitioner's entitlement and the respondent also denied the allegations made by the petitioner. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot examine the correctness of the details, since there are disputed questions of fact relating to a money claim. Therefore, while declining to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner, liberty is given to the petitioner to move the appropriate forum and raise all the legal and factual contentions in the manner known to law. 6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.