Allowed

Vimal.v. v. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General)

Kerala HC25 Jun 2012WP(C)/8402/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the third respondent bank's refusal to grant employment assistance to the petitioner, the son of a deceased employee. The bank cited the father's suspension and pending arbitration case as grounds, but the court held no rule disentitles such claims, directing the bank to consider the application expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's application for employment assistance in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within one month.

Vimal.v. Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative… — 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

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/4TH ASHADHA 1934 WP(C).No. 8402 of 2012 (A) --------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER: -------------

¶6

VIMAL.V. VIMAL NIVAS, C.M.C 21, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH

¶7

RESPONDENTS: --------------

¶8

JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL) ALAPPUZHA 690 001. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) CHERTHALA 688 524. 3. CHERTHALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.1688, CHERTHALA, 688 524, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA BY ADV. SRI.K.A.BALAN BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

APPENDIX

¶11

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶12

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.6.2011 SUBMITTED THE PETITIONER AND HIS MOTHER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶13

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19.7.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS MOTHER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶14

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CRP (1) 3973/2011/L.DIS.DATED 22.8.2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶15

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.NIL DATED 22.10.2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶16

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶21

W.P(C) NO: 8402 OF 2012

¶22

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 25^th June, 2012.

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner is the son of late P.Vamadevan who died in harness on 24-5-2011. He was working as the Chief Accountant of the third respondent bank at the time of his death. The petitioner, his mother and brother are the legal heirs of the deceased employee. Since the petitioner is eligible for employment assistance under Rule 188A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (the 'Rules' for short), he submitted Ext.P1 application seeking such assistance. The complaint of the petitioner is that the third respondent bank has not considered the same for the reason that the petitioner's father was under suspension at the time of his death and that an arbitration case was pending against him.

¶25

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent. According to the counter affidavit, the petitioner's father was facing serious charges of misconduct and was under suspension, at the time of his death. The disciplinary proceedings could not be continued because of his death. Since he had caused huge loss to the third respondent bank, the bank has filed an

¶26

WPC No: 8402/2012 2

¶27

arbitration case against him for realisation of money, which is pending. On the death of his father the petitioner as well as his mother and brother have been impleaded as additional parties to the said arbitration case. For the above reasons, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to claim appointment under Rule 188A of the Rules.

¶28

Though Rule 188A stipulates various conditions that are required to be satisfied for claiming employment assistance by the dependents of a deceased employee, there is no provision in the said Rule disentitling the petitioner to claim such assistance for the reason that his father had been under suspension at the time of his death or that an arbitration case was pending against him for recovery of losses caused by him. In the absence of any specific grounds disentitling the petitioner it is not open to the third respondent to keep the petitioner's application pending for the said reason. It has therefore to be held that the impugned action of the third respondent is without any justification.

¶29

For the above reasons, this writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner's application for employment assistance, evidenced herein by Ext.P1 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as

¶30

WPC No: 8402/2012

¶31

¶32

expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶34

jj /True copy/

¶35

P.S.to Judge

Vimal.v. v. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal.v. v. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ramanathan Vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

Private Bus Operator'S Association Vs the Angamaly Municipality

P.R.Asokan Vs Kottayam District Chief Toddy Workers

P.Stanley Vs the General Manager, Kdcb Mavoor Branch

Tecil Workers Union(Citu) and Another Vs M/S Tecil Chemicals & Hydropower Ltd.

N.O.Santhoshkumar Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Nedumangad