Allowed

Esbella Thomas v. Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Kerala HC13 Jul 2012WP(C)/10098/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by non-graduate bank employees seeking clarification on the retrospective effect of their qualification exemption. The court directed that the exemption granted by the bank must relate back to their actual dates of promotion.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the relaxation granted to petitioners relates back to their respective dates of promotion (01.03.2008 for 1st petitioner; 01.06.2010 for 2nd petitioner).

Esbella Thomas Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2012/22ND ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 10098 of 2012 (J)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. ESBELLA THOMAS, BRANCH MANAGER/INTERNAL AUDITOR,

¶8

POTHANICAD FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.3510 POTHANICAD 686 671

¶9

2. EBRAHIM C.M.

¶10

BRANCH MANAGER/INTERNAL AUDITOR , POTHANICAD FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.3510 POTHANICAD 686 671

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶14

2. POTHANICAD FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.3510 REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, POTHANICAD 686 671

¶15

3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL) ERNAKULAM 682 011

¶16

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 10098 of 2012 (J)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

---------

¶22

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.3797 DATED 17.6.09 OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER AND ANNEXURES.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.5423 DATED 27.5.2010 OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER AND ANNEXURES
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE STAFF STRENGTH ALONG WITH FEEDER CATEGORY AND PRESENT STAFF STRENGTH
EXT.P4	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2005 IN WPC NO.29679/04
EXT.P5	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.11.2009 IN THE CASE OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.6.2011 IN THE CASE OF THE SECOND PETITIONER.
EXT.P7	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2007(1) KLT 581
EXT.P8	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.2.2010 IN WPC NO.1424/2010
EXT.P9	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. 361/11 DATED 18.3.2011
EXT.P10	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.8.11 IN WPC NO.15473/2011
EXT.P11	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.2.2012

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN,J.

¶29

--------------------------------------------WP(C).No.10098 of 2012

¶30

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2012

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioners are non-graduates. The 1^st petitioner has been working as an Accountant since 12.06.1999 and

¶33

the 2^nd petitioner has been working as an Accountant since 01.02.2003. According to them, their next promotion is as Branch Manager/Internal Auditor. The qualification for the said post is Graduation. Since the petitioners do not possess the said qualification, the 2^nd respondent passed necessary resolutions seeking exemption from the qualification under Rule 185(8) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. As per Exts.P5 and P6, the exemption sought for has been granted to the petitioners. However, the exemption has been granted only with effect from the date of the said orders. According to the petitioners, the petitioners had

¶34

W.P.(C)No.10098 /2012

¶35

: 2 :

¶36

been promoted to the next higher post of Branch Manager/Internal Auditor with effect from 01.03.2008 and 01.06.2010 respectively. The resolution of the 2^nd respondent had also sought exemption with effect from the respective dates of promotion of each of the petitioners. Therefore, they claim that they are entitled to be granted exemption with effect from the respective dates of their promotion.

¶37

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the issue is covered by Exts.P4, P9 and P10 judgments. The learned Government Pleader does not dispute the above legal position.

¶38

In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the relaxation granted to the petitioners in Exts.P5 and P6 proceedings shall relate back to 01.03.2008 in the case of the 1^st petitioner and 01.06.2010 in the case of the 2^nd petitioner.

¶39

Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶40

kkj

¶41

//True copy//

¶42

PA to Judge.

Esbella Thomas v. Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Esbella Thomas v. Registrar of Co-Operative 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

Assainar Vs the Secretary,Regional Transport Authority

T.T. Jayachandran Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

V.Geetha Vs Smt.K.v.Valsakumari

S.Sunitha Kumari Vs Secretary

K.Sreenivasn Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Mohanan K.K Vs Regional Transport Authority