- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42920 WP No. 6780 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 6780 OF 2022 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: S.P. SIDDEGOWDA S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED 64 YEARS R/AT C/O RAMEGOWDA NO.143/144, J BLOCK, KANAKADASA NAGARA DHATTADAHALLI, MYSORE - 570022 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RENUKAMBA B.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002 2. KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE CONSUMERS FEDERATION LIMITED NO.4, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560018 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI .S., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. T. DADA KHALANDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF FILE DISPUTE FROM THE OFFICE OF ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (C AND M) ALIASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU. CALL FOR RECORDS OF FILE APPEAL NO.184/2021 FROM THE OFFICE OF KAT BENGALURU AND ETC., Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42920 WP No. 6780 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being an ex-employee of respondent No.2 - Karnataka State Co-operative Consumer's Federation Limited, is seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.08.2021 passed by respondent No.1 - Additional Register of the Co-operative Societies, Bengaluru, produced as per Annexure-D, and the order dated 31.01.2022 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru produced as per Annexure-E. 2. Heard Smt. Renukamba BP, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Chandini S, learned HCGP for respondent No.1, and Sri. T Dadakhalandhar learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition?" - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42920 WP No. 6780 of 2022 My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed under respondent No.2 - Karnataka State Co- operative Consumer's Federation Limited, as First Division Clerk. After attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 30.11.2017. After retirement, respondent No.2 had paid gratuity amount withholding leave encashment, security deposits, and exgratia for two years. The reasons assigned by respondent No.2, for withholding the amount of Rs.5,85,000/- is on the basis of complaint said to have been received with regard to the discrepancy in the account maintained by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner had approached respondent No.1 by raising the dispute under Section 70(2)(d) of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959. The same was rejected by passing an order as per Annexure-D. Being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1, the petitioner challenged the same before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42920 WP No. 6780 of 2022 the appeal came to be dismissed as per Annexure-E. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. As per the order dated 29.07.2022 the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order: "Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2 jointly submit that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the petitioner is permitted to visit/go to the Chikkamagaluru branch of respondent No.2 and meet the concerned Manager, Officers etc., of respondent No.2 for the purpose of reconciliation of the accounts and to enable the parties to explore the possibility of amicable settlement. Said submissions of both sides are placed on record. Re-list on 22.08.2022." 7. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner is said to have approached respondent No.2 and reconciled the accounts. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the discrepancy in the account was due to deduction toward TDS, and the same are not the receivables. The TDS so deducted was directly credited to the account of the head office after the petitioner has reconciled the account to the satisfaction of respondent No.2. 8. Per contra, it is the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that, the petitioner had visited respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42920 WP No. 6780 of 2022 No.2 as per the directions of this Court, and submitted Annexure-R2J stating that all the discrepancies in the account are already reconciled, the same was referred to the auditor and tax practitioners for consideration. After considering the explanation given by the petitioner, the audit report was submitted as per Annexure-R2K, according to which, the TDS which is reflected in Form No.26 AS is Rs.8,61,884/- for three years. But the remaining outstanding amount is Rs.4,84,918/-. Under these circumstances, it is the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the petitioner is required to explain regarding this discrepancy of Rs.4,84,918/-. The auditor has enclosed the statement as per ICR and other documents provided by KSCCF Ltd,. As per the statement, the total sales was Rs.5,29,33,074/- and total payment made is Rs.5,15,86,272/-. The TDS reflected in Form No.26 AS is Rs.8,61,884/-, but the balance outstanding is Rs.4,84,918/-. Therefore, it is the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the amount of Rs.4,84,918/- is to be explained/reconciled by the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42920 WP No. 6780 of 2022 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the High Court of Madras in V Radhakrishnan (Deceased) V/s The Government Of Tamil Nadu1; decision rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kona Appa Rao V/s The State Of Andhra Pradesh2 and the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sri. H Channaiah V/s The Chief Executive Officer3, in support of his contention that the leave encashment payable to the employees is their legal right accrued in their favour upon retirement and it will not be contingent upon the discretion of the employer. This position of law is well settled and is not disputed. But the fact remains that there was other discrepancy in the account maintained by the petitioner while working as a Assistant Accountant and respondent No.2 is asking the petitioner to reconcile the same. Even after the petitioner has submitted Annexure-R2J, stating that he has reconciled the accounts, the same was referred to the auditor, however, he still points out that, the outstanding amount is Rs.4,84,918/-. Under such circumstances, 1 "WP.Nos.32280 of 2017 and connected matters DD 26.04.2024" 2 "2024 SCC Online AP 2730 " 3 "2024 3 LLN 604 (KAR)" - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42920 WP No. 6780 of 2022 respondent No.1 and Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru has rejected the claim of the petitioner. 10. I do not find any force in the contention taken by the petitioner, as there is no arbitrary denial of payment of leave encashment and security deposit with interest by respondent No.2. It is stated that the petitioner may be entitled for an amount of Rs.2,66,000/- towards leave encashment, plus Rs.46,000/- towards security deposit with interest, which is much less than the amount referred to by the auditor in Annexure-R2J. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Hence, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV - CT:VS - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4