JUDGMENT : Harisankar V. Menon, J. The 1 st petitioner is a co-operative society represented by its secretary. The 2 nd petitioner is the Managing Committee of the same. The 6 th respondent herein was admittedly the secretary of the society from 1987 to 2015. Admittedly, his services were not originally regularised, and it was regularised only after his retirement. After his retirement, he instituted W.P.(C) No.33009 of 2015 seeking for the disbursement of the pensionary benefits. By Ext.P1 judgment dated 11.01.2017, this Court specifically noticed the contention raised by the 6 th respondent that he was entitled for receiving at least Rs.40 lakhs towards the terminal benefits. According to the petitioner herein, who was the respondent in that case, the entitlement of the 6 th respondent was only for Rs.29,58,817/-. This Court also noticed the contention raised by the society that the 6 th respondent herein had to pay an amount in excess of Rs.10,70,905/- to the society. Ultimately, this Court directed the society to disburse Rs.18,87,912/- and another amount of Rs.6,14,409/- to the Pension Board. The society also filed I.A No.1460 of 2017 in the afore writ petition, pointing out that the amount of Rs.18,87,912/- was inclusive of the amount payable to the Pension Board. Therefore, the judgment at Ext.P1 was corrected by permitting the society to disburse Rs.12,73,503/- to the 6 th respondent along with a sum of Rs.6,14,409/- to the Pension Board. Admittedly, the amount of Rs.6,14,409/- has been satisfied by the 1 st petitioner society, as evidenced by Ext.P3 dated 31.07.2017. Later, the 6 th respondent had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.11591 of 2019, pointing out that the proportionate pension requires to be extended to him. By Ext.P5 judgment dated 04.06.2019, the 6 th respondent was permitted to make a request before the Board for extension of the same. At that point of time, the 5 th respondent – Pension Board, had issued Ext.P6 notice, directing the 1 st petitioner to remit an amount of Rs. 7,27,901/- more towards the contribution payable to the Pension Board, after crediting the amount paid pursuant to Ext.P3 receipt. The afore demand was challenged by the petitioners by filing W.P.(C) No.14514 of 2021 before this Court. 7,27,901/- more towards the contribution payable to the Pension Board, after crediting the amount paid pursuant to Ext.P3 receipt. The afore demand was challenged by the petitioners by filing W.P.(C) No.14514 of 2021 before this Court. By Ext.P10 judgment dated 08.06.2022, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the afore writ petition, finding that the demand could be enforced only after carrying out an enquiry under the provisions of Clause 38 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme (for short ‘Scheme’). On the basis of the directions issued, an order at Ext.P12 was issued by the 5 th respondent, finding that the society is liable to satisfy the amounts as calculated originally. Therefore, the proceedings at Ext.P12 were taken up in appeal before the Government by filing Ext.P13 appeal. By the impugned order at Ext.P16, the Government having rejected the same, the petitioners have instituted the captioned writ petition. 2. I have heard Sri.George Sebastian, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4, Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent, as well as Sri.T.R.Harikumar, the learned counsel for the legal heirs of the 6 th respondent, who passed away during the pendency of this writ petition. 3. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that an appropriate enquiry under Clause 38 of the Scheme was not carried out. It is also pointed out that if at all any steps require to be taken, it ought to have been taken only against the Secretary of the society, who was none other than the deceased 6 th respondent, as well as the Board of Directors at that point of time. He would also point out that the details of the calculation of the actual liability as produced by the 6 th respondent, along with the counter affidavit, was never served upon them, or nor reflected in the impugned orders. 4. Sri.Harikumar, the learned counsel on the other hand, would seek to rely on the counter affidavit filed to contend that actually the 6 th respondent was not originally regularized and his regularization was only after his retirement in the year 2015. 4. Sri.Harikumar, the learned counsel on the other hand, would seek to rely on the counter affidavit filed to contend that actually the 6 th respondent was not originally regularized and his regularization was only after his retirement in the year 2015. He would further add that the Pension Scheme itself was not extended to “milk societies”, and it is only in the year 2015 that it was so extended. According to him, it is in the afore circumstances that originally the contributions were not made to the Pension Board. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also sought to rely on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sambasivan Nair T.R. v. Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board and Another [ 2012(3) KHC 518 ] , to contend that no revenue recovery could be initiated against the society. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and connected records. 7. The first contention raised by the petitioners is the alleged absence of an enquiry under the provisions of Clause 38 of the Scheme. However, it is to be noticed that subsequent to directions of this Court in Ext.P10 judgment, the matter was heard afresh, extending an opportunity for hearing to the society. Impugned order at Ext.P12 would show that more than one opportunity was extended to the society in connection with the enquiry. It is after carrying out that enquiry that Ext.P12 order has recorded that the society has no dispute regarding the calculation of the pension fund contribution. Though this statement contained in Ext.P12, is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances as recorded in the order at Ext.P12, I find no reason to disbelieve the endorsement to that effect. This is all the more so, when it is pointed out on behalf of the deceased 6 th respondent that the Pension Board had verified the details of remittance/service book/pay fixation etc., available with the society and has issued the statement of calculation at Ext.R6(a), on the basis of which, the demand notice was issued to the petitioners. This is all the more so, when it is pointed out on behalf of the deceased 6 th respondent that the Pension Board had verified the details of remittance/service book/pay fixation etc., available with the society and has issued the statement of calculation at Ext.R6(a), on the basis of which, the demand notice was issued to the petitioners. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the statement of calculation as above at Ext.R6(a) was never served/not forming part of the impugned demand notices, in view of the specific averments in the counter affidavits filed by respondents 5 and 6, which has not been controverted by filing a reply affidavit by the petitioners, this Court is not in a position to accept the stand taken by the petitioners as above. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to rely on the provisions of Rule 39 (2) of the Scheme to contend that as and when the amount of Rs.6,14,409/- was paid as seen from Ext.P3, the liability of the society has ceased to exist. The afore provision would apply only with respect to the payment of the “entire outstanding amount” to the Pension Board. As already noticed, the entire outstanding was not paid by the society, on account of which proceedings have been taken against the petitioners. Therefore, the reliance placed on Rule 39(2) does not appear to be apposite. 9. The counsel for the petitioners also sought to rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sambavasivan Nair (supra). True, this Court in the afore judgment had directed that the Pension Board not to resort to recovery proceedings for realization of the contribution and has observed that other remedial measures as stated in paragraph No.3 thereunder requires to be addressed. To put it otherwise, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that steps require to be taken against the then Secretary, who is none other than the deceased 6 th respondent, and the then managing committee members. But I am of the opinion that the afore principles would not apply to the case at hand for more than one reason. As has been noticed earlier, the Scheme was not extended to the employees of the milk societies at least till 2003. Furthermore, the 6 th respondent’s appointment came to be regularized only after his retirement in 2015. But I am of the opinion that the afore principles would not apply to the case at hand for more than one reason. As has been noticed earlier, the Scheme was not extended to the employees of the milk societies at least till 2003. Furthermore, the 6 th respondent’s appointment came to be regularized only after his retirement in 2015. In such circumstances, there is no basis for the contention, noticed above, that the recovery is required to be taken against the then secretary. This Court also notices that even when Ext.P1 judgment was rendered in 2017, the 1 st respondent society had admitted that the 6 th respondent was entitled to sums in excess of Rs.29 lakhs. The present dispute raised by the society as regards the contribution required to be made to the Pension Board, only appears to be an attempt to wriggle out of its liability. 10. On the whole, I am of the opinion that the findings contained in Ext.P16, does not call for any interference. Therefore, this writ petition only requires to be rejected. 11. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to at least waive the interest sought to be demanded for the arrears in the contribution to be paid to the Pension Board. As already noticed, the arrears in contribution has arisen on account of the reasons noticed earlier. The petitioners were bona fide challenging the demand raised before the statutory authorities. The delay in remittance could not be said to be entirely on account of the fault of the petitioners. Even as per Ext.R6(a), the total contribution payable was to the extent of Rs.10,01,535/- and after crediting the amount paid pursuant to Ext.P3, the balance is only Rs.3,87,126/-. However, higher amounts are sought to be demanded, essentially representing the interest for the delayed payment. In my opinion, the afore interest requires to be waived off. 12. Therefore, while confirming the findings contained in Ext.P16 order, this Court further directs that the petitioners need only remit the principal component of the contribution which ought to have been paid to the Pension Board. This writ petition would stand disposed of as above.