Disposed

Gangadharan P.V v. Koottumugham Service Co-Operative Bank

Kerala HC26 Sept 2012WP(C)/37371/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the regularisation of a later-employed colleague with retrospective seniority. The court directed the Government to consider the petitioner's representation for regularisation from his joining date.

What did the court decide?

Direction to submit representation to the 5th respondent/Government within one month for consideration.

Gangadharan P.V Vs Koottumugham Service… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/4TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 37371 of 2010 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------------GANGADHARAN P.V.,SENIOR CLERK, KOOTTUMUGHAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.C-72, P.O. KOOTTUMUGHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 631.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN

¶9

SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. KOOTTUMUGHAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.C-72, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O. KOOTTUMUGHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 631.

¶12

2. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE KOOTTUMUGHAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. C-72, P.O., KOOTTUMUGHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 631 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶13

3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), KANNUR DISTRICT-670 001.

¶14

4. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY CO-OPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

6. A.V.PADMAN, BRANCH MANAGER, KOOTTUMUGHAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.C-72, P.O. KOOTTUMUGHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 631.

¶17

R1& R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN R3 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.VIJULAL R6 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Kss

¶20

WPC.NO.37371/2010 V

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 22/09/1984.

¶24

P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/06/99.

¶25

P3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶26

P4: COPY OF AWARD INI.D.NO.75/87 DATED 30/06/1988.

¶27

P5: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION BY WHICH PETITIONER AND THE 6TH RESPONDENT WERE PROMOTED TO THE POST OF SENIOR CLERK DATED 6/05/1999.

¶28

P6: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 13/08/2010.

¶29

P7: COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST.

¶30

P8: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11/12/2007.

¶31

P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL REQUESTING FOR REGULARISATION, SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.

¶32

P10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12/2/2009.

¶33

P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9/03/2010 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶34

P12: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6/04/2010 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶35

P13: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/06/2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶36

P14: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 10/11/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶37

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.37371 of 2010

¶42

Dated this the 26^th day of September 2012

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

Petitioner is working as Senior Clerk in the 1^st respondent

¶45

bank. According to him, he initially joined as a daily wage worker on 22/09/1980 and subsequently he was regularised with effect from 22/09/1984 as Attender. He had passed S.S.L.C and J.D.C and was promoted as Junior Clerk on completion of three years service in the post of Attender. Though he was entitled to be promoted as Junior Clerk after completion of three years service as Attender, he was promoted as Junior Clerk only on 06/05/1999 and subsequently he was promoted as Senior Clerk as on 01/09/2009. His complaint is that the 6^th respondent who had joined service subsequent to his appointment that is on 05/11/1980 as a daily wage worker was regularised in service with effect from 05/11/1980. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the 6^th respondent was regularised with effect from 05/11/1980, he became senior to the petitioner as a result of which the 6^th respondent obtained promotion to the post of Internal Auditor much prior to the petitioner.

¶46

W.P.C.No.37371/2010

¶47

¶48

Though the petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 representation to the Secretary of the 1^st respondent Bank complaining about the fact that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity by making him junior to that of 6^th respondent and requesting the Bank to regularise his service with effect from the date of joining as daily wage worker, no action had been taken in the matter.

¶49

It is the case of the 6^th respondent that he was appointed as daily wage worker as per resolution dated 03/11/1980 after following due selection process. Vacancy was notified in newspapers and after receiving applications interview was conducted and he was selected in accordance with law. His appointment was approved by the Joint Registrar with effect from 05/11/1980. Since he was illegally reverted to the post of Bill Collector, he challenged the same and by Ext.P4 award, Management was directed to appoint him in the post of Salesman. He was also directed to be given all consequential benefits. It is his case that his service was regularised and counted with effect from 05/11/1980. Since nobody challenged the award, it cannot be done by way of collateral proceedings by

¶50

W.P.C.No.37371/2010

¶51

¶52

challenging his seniority. He reiterates the position that he was a senior salesman with effect from 05/11/1980 on the basis of various orders passed by the concerned authroity as per Exts.P10 to P23. Hence it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to claim seniority to that of 6^th respondent.

¶53

Petitioner challenges the orders passed by the official respondents approving regularisation of service of the 6^th respondent from 05/11/1980. Apparently, the matter was considered even by the Government and the Government also came to the conclusion that service of the 6^th respondent can be regularised without giving any monetary benefits as such. According to the petitioner, he was also employed as daily wage worker; but his case is not considered favourably. Though there was an instance where an award has been passed by the Labour Court as far as 6^th respondent is concerned, it is however a matter which is purely within the discretion of the Managing Committee of the 1^st respondent Bank which cannot be adjudicated in this proceedings.

¶54

However, the complaint of the petitioner is that the department/authorities were not aware of the fact that another

¶55

W.P.C.No.37371/2010

¶56

¶57

person was also appointed prior to the appointment of 6^th respondent as daily wage worker and such a fact was not brought to the notice of such authorities, which seems to be reasonable. Therefore it will be appropriate that the Government can consider the fact as to whether the petitioner is also entitled for regularisation with effect from the date on which he had joined i.e.22/09/1980.

¶58

In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶59

i) The petitioner shall submit a representation to the 5^th respondent/ Government within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the Government shall consider such representation in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner.

¶60

ii) The representation shall be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the same.

¶61

(sd/-)

¶62

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶63

jsr

¶64

W.P.C.No.37371/2010 5

¶65

W.P.C.No.37371/2010 6

¶66

W.P.C.No.37371/2010 7

Gangadharan P.V v. Koottumugham Service Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadharan P.V v. Koottumugham Service Co-Operative Bank

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

G.Sureshkumar Vs Karavaram Panchayath Service Co-Op.

Mohan Kumar Vs Kerala Public Service Commisison & Ors.

Dr.C.S.James Vs Kerala Agricultural University

T.C.Money Vs Kel Ltd.

Gangadharan P.V. Vs Koottumughan Service Co-Operative Bank L

Sujatha Amma and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others