Dismissed

B.Sasikumar v. Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC20 Feb 2014WP(C)/19607/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the writ petition and closed the appeal as premature. The proposal to redesignate the petitioner's post from Public Relations Officer to Assistant was deemed inconsequential and non-redressable until accepted by the Committee and approved by the Registrar and Government.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition dismissed; appeal closed with no orders.

B.Sasikumar Vs Kerala State Co-Operative… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/1ST PHALGUNA, 1935

¶6

WP(C).No. 19607 of 2012 (A)

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

B.SASIKUMAR AGED 54 YEARS PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK STAFF TRAINING CENTRE KOCHI.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.)

¶10

SRI.S.MANU

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. LAND BANK BUILDINGS, STATUE JUNCTION, PB NO. 56 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC, BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.SAIDALAVI

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-022014, ALONG WITH WA NO.1886/12, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO.19607/12

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08-10-1990.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07-09-2007.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 26-02-2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 26-03-2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS)NO. 159/2010/CO-OP. DATED 20-09-2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06-10-2010.

¶26

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12-12-2011.

¶27

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HELD ON 19-07-2012.

¶28

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16-08-2012.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//True Copy//

PA to Judge

ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ. ============================== W.P.(C) No.19607 of 2012 &

¶34

W.A.No.1886 of 2012

¶35

====================

¶36

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2014

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Antony Dominic, J.

¶39

The writ appeal is filed against the interim order dated 6/9/12 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.19607/12. Since any decision in the appeal would seal the fate of the writ petition itself, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents, we called for the writ petition also and heard the appeal and the writ petition.

¶40

Writ petition was filed by the 1^st respondent in the writ appeal aggrieved by Ext.P8. Briefly stated, his case was that in 1990, he was appointed as a Public Relations Assistant in the Bank, the appellant in the writ appeal. He continued in that post and while so, by Ext.P4 dated 26/3/2010, the Committee of the Bank mooted a proposal for redesignating the post as Public Relations Officer. In terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the resolution was subject to the approval of the Registrar and on his approval of the

¶41

W.P(C) No.19607/12 &

¶42

W.A.No.1886/12

¶43

: 2 :

¶44

resolution, the Registrar made a proposal to the Government, which, by Ext.P5 order, accepted the proposal. Accordingly, the Bank issued Ext.P6 proceedings dated 6/10/10 redesignating the post held by the writ petitioner as Public Relations Officer.

¶45

According to the Bank, for better utilization of his services, he was deployed to other establishments of the Bank and finally the Executive Committee of the Bank made Ext.P8 proposal dated 19/7/12 to the Board to redesignate the post of Public Relations Officer held by the writ petitioner as Assistant. It was challenging Ext.P8 proposal of the Executive Committee, the writ petitioner approached this Court raising various contentions. Considering his interim prayer for stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8, the learned Single Judge after hearing the parties passed order dated 6/9/12, directing the Bank not to implement Ext.P8 proposal in so far as it relates to the redesignation of the post of the writ petitioner. It is aggrieved by this order, the writ appeal is filed.

¶46

From the facts that we have narrated above, it is evident that the writ petition itself has been filed aggrieved by Ext.P8, which is nothing but a proposal made by the Executive

¶47

W.P(C) No.19607/12 &

¶48

W.A.No.1886/12

¶49

: 3 :

¶50

Committee of the Bank. The proposal to become a decision requires its acceptance by the Committee. The resolution for its implementation requires its approval by the Registrar and the Government.

¶51

Therefore, as at present, Ext.P8 is only an inconsequential proposal which cannot give rise to any legally redressable grievance for the writ petitioner to maintain a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In other words, the writ petition itself is premature.

¶52

Therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ petition nor do we find any justification for the learned Single Judge to have passed order dated 6/9/12 challenged in the appeal. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶53

In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, no orders are necessary in the appeal. The appeal is closed.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

ANIL K. NARENDRAN

JUDGE

//True Copy//

PA TO JUDGE

B.Sasikumar v. Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Sasikumar v. Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.S. Rajan Vs the Icici Bank Ltd.

Antony Kakkanat Vs State of Kerala

Paul Antony Adima Vs Rosi Irani

State of Kerala Vs Sasidharan Nair

Varkey John Vs Kunjamma John

Kunjamma John Vs Varkey Joseph