Partly allowed

B. Bhuvanendran Nair v. Registrar of Co-Op. Societies

Kerala HC22 Sept 2009WP(C)/5573/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court set aside Government Orders passed without hearing the Bank, violating principles of natural justice. Directs Government to dispose of the Bank's representation with proper notice on file. Closed remaining writ petitions as proceedings became infructuous or premature.

What did the court decide?

Government Orders passed without notice set aside. Direction to Government to reconsider Bank's representation with notice to parties within three months. Other writ petitions closed.

B. Bhuvanendran Nair Vs Registrar of Co-Op. Societies — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 5573 of 2007(L)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

---------------

¶9

B.BHUVANENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR CLERK, ANAD FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PANAVOOR BRANCH, PANAVOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

---------------

¶13

1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

2. THE ANAD FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.919, ANAD P.O., NEDUMANGAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶16

4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM.

¶17

ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR R2 SRI.S.RAMESH FOR R2

¶18

MR.DILIP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 9942 OF 2007 & 15780 of 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WPC NO.5573/2007

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

P1 : COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT.

¶24

P2 : COPY OF GO(MS) NO.283/2006/CO-OP. DATED 28/06/2006.

¶25

P3 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.30355/2005 DATED 12/07/2006.

¶26

P4 : COPY OF LETTER NO.7223/C1/06/CO-OP. DATED 05/01/2007.

¶27

P5 : COPY OF LETTER NO.CRP(2) 9564/05 DATED 31/08/2006.

¶28

P6 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 02/02/2007.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

WP(C) Nos.5573, 9942 of 2007 & 15780 of 2008

¶34

Dated, this the 22^nd day of September, 2009

¶35

The issues raised in these writ petitions are connected, and therefore, these cases are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶36

I shall refer to the facts as pleaded in WP(C) No.9942/2007 filed by the Bank.

¶37

The 3^rd respondent, the petitioner in WP(C) Nos.5573/2007 & 15780/2008, is presently working as a Senior Clerk in the petitioner Bank. The controversy in this writ petition arises out of the implementation of pay revision ordered as per GO (P) No.56/92 dated 09/06/92, which inter alia provided that the pay revision should result a minimum enhancement of Rs.150/- to the employees. The Bank submits, referring to Ext.P1, the pay fixation order of the 3^rd respondent employee, that the benefit of pay revision was extended to him, and that his emoluments were

¶38

WP(C) Nos.5573, 9942/2007 & 15780/2008

¶39

-2-

¶40

enhanced by Rs.150/- as provided in the Government Order. However, the employee disputed the correctness of pay revision and that resulted in Ext.P3 order passed by the Joint Registrar, directing that the 3^rd respondent be given the benefit as provided in the Government Order. The objection of the Bank is that the 3^rd respondent has already been extended the benefit, and that therefore, the Joint Registrar's order was erroneous.

¶41

Be that as it may, in view of Ext.P3, as on 14/05/2005, the 3^rd respondent drew an amount of Rs.1,29,465/-, which according to the Bank was erroneous and is to be refunded. The audit party also raised objection to the extension of the emoluments, and that resulted in issuance of Exts.P5 & P6 memos. These memos were challenged by the 3^rd respondent in WP(C) No.30355/2005, and during the pendency of the writ petition, the 3^rd respondent again moved the Joint Registrar, and during the pendency of the writ petition and the proceedings before the Joint Registrar, by Ext.P7 order, the Government also upheld the claim of the 3^rd respondent once again. Against that order, the Bank represented and during the pendency of that representation, the aforesaid writ petition was closed by this Court in view of Ext.P7

¶42

WP(C) Nos.5573, 9942/2007 & 15780/2008

¶43

-3-

¶44

Government Order referred to above.

¶45

However, the Bank filed Writ Appeal No.1613/2006, which was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment, relegating the Bank to pursue the remedies before the statutory authorities. Accordingly, the Bank submitted Ext.P10 representation before the Government, which was rejected by the Government as per Ext.P11order dated 05/01/2007 and this order was passed without hearing the Bank. It was thereupon that this writ petition was filed by the Bank contending that both Government Orders, Exts.P7 & P11, which were passed by the Government without hearing the Bank, are illegal.

¶46

In so far as WP(C) No.5573/2007 is concerned, the 3^rd respondent employee in WP(C) No.9942/2007, has filed the writ petition seeking implementation of Exts.P7 & P11 orders referred to above. In so far as WP(C) No.15780/08 is concerned, that again is filed by the employee referred to above, challenging Ext.P6 notice dated 13/05/2008 issued by the Government entertaining the revision filed by the Bank against Ext.P7 order referred to above. At the time when the writ petition was admitted, this Court passed an interim order restraining the Bank from proceeding further with the

¶47

WP(C) Nos.5573, 9942/2007 & 15780/2008

¶48

-4-

¶49

matter, and this position continues even as on date.

¶50

From the facts as above, it can be seen that firstly this Court should deal with the contentions raised by the Bank in WP(C) No.9942/2007. As already seen, it is the case of the Bank that pay fixation as provided in GO(P) No.56/92 dated 09/06/92, has been extended to the employee, the 3^rd respondent herein. According to the Bank, when pay revision was effected as provided in the Government Order, the total emoluments stood enhanced only by Rs.123/-, and to ensure that the minimum emoluments of Rs.150/was given, they have given a further enhancement by Rs.27/-. It is therefore stated that both the orders passed by the Joint Registrar and the Government directing extension of the benefit once again is a duplication and is erroneous. On the other hand, it is the case of the employee that he was not given the benefit.

¶51

This necessarily involves a factual adjudication of the issue, which the Government should have done, with notice to the Bank and the employee concerned. However, it is seen that when Exts.P7 & P11 were passed, the Government did not issue notice to the Bank and therefore the Bank was deprived of an opportunity to canvass its case. In my view, such orders should not have been

¶52

WP(C) Nos.5573, 9942/2007 & 15780/2008

¶53

-5-

¶54

passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, and for that reason Ext.P11 in WP(C) No.9942/2007 and Ext.P4 in WP(C) No.5573/2007 will stand set aside. The Government is directed to consider Ext.P10 in WP(C) No.9942/2007, representation filed by the Bank against Ext.P7 Government Order with notice to the Bank and the employee Shri.Bhuvanendran Nair, and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

Now that I have directed reconsideration of Ext.P10 representation as above, the prayer made by the employee in WP(C) No.5573/2007 filed by him for the implementation of the Government Orders is premature. Therefore, that writ petition is closed directing that his claim will depend upon the order to be passed by the Government as directed above.

¶56

In the light of the above, no further orders are called for in WP(C) No.15780/08 as the revision which is entertained by the Government has now become infructuous. Therefore, this writ petition also will stand closed.

¶57

It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced on

¶58

WP(C) Nos.5573, 9942/2007 & 15780/2008

¶59

-6-

¶60

the merits of the contentions raised by either of the parties, and it is

¶61

entirely to the Government to decide the matter untrammalled by

¶62

the observations herein.

¶63

These writ petitions are disposed of as above.

¶64

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶65

B. Bhuvanendran Nair v. Registrar of Co-Op. Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Bhuvanendran Nair v. Registrar of Co-Op. Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.P.Kuberan Vs Taliparambu Trichambaram Kanjirangad

K.K.Prabha and Others Vs Kerala Agricultural University Rep, by

Sathyapalan Vs State of Kerala

Krishnan Kutty Nair Vs State of Kerala and Others

The Manager, Sn Up School,Pothinkandam Vs State of Kerala

N.P.Mini Vs State of Kerala