Disposed

The General Manager v. T.L Rajeswari

Kerala HC20 May 2015WP(C)/11475/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the jurisdiction of the Kerala Lok Ayukta regarding a complaint filed by a bank employee concerning pensionary benefits. The Court noted the arguments that the employee was an active bank staff member and the matter should first be decided by the bank regarding disciplinary proceedings before the Jayukta could adjudicate.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to raise the question of maintainability before the 2nd respondent (Lok Ayukta). The writ petition is disposed of. Each party to bear their costs.

The General Manager Vs T.L Rajeswari — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2015/30TH VAISAKHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 11475 of 2015 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE GENERAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., NO.421, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. T.L. RAJESWARI, W/O.SURESH, SOUYPARNIKA, POONJAR.P.O., PERUNILAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686563.

¶11

2. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR-695033.

¶12

R2 BY ADV. SMT.RENU. D.P., SC, LOK AYUKTA

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 11475 of 2015 (H)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, LOKAYUKTHA.

¶19

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY FO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON EXT.P1 COMPLAINT.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶26

===================== W.P.(C) No.11475 of 2015

¶27

====================== Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2015

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner, an Urban Co-operative Bank, challenges the proceedings initiated by the 2^nd respondent pursuant to Ext.P1 complaint filed by the 1^st respondent. Ext.P2 is the notice issued to the petitioner herein and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would seek to sustain the same on the ground that, the complaint Ext.P1 relates to pensionary benefits; the grievance with respect to which comes within the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta as per the binding precedents of this Court reported in K.S.R.T.C v.

¶30

Padmavathy [2008(1) KLT 584].

¶31

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶32

however would contend that, on the facts of the aforesaid case,

¶33

W.P.(C) No.11475 of 2015

¶34

¶35

the 2^nd respondent would have absolutely no jurisdiction, since the 1^st respondent is continuing in employment with the petitioner Bank. It is submitted that the petitioner had taken disciplinary proceedings against the 1^st respondent, who was kept under suspension during the pendency of the proceedings. Later in the appeal, the Board permitted the 1^st respondent to join in the entry post. The 1^st respondent having accepted the same and being continued in the entry post, does not have any claim with respect to the service benefits as of now, is the contention.

¶36

However since, the said contention could as well be agitated before the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner is directed to raise the question of maintainability before the 2^nd respondent, which definitely the 2^nd respondent would consider as a preliminary issue. It is specifically noticed that, what has been stated as to the facts are mere reiteration of the arguments placed on record by both sides and does not indicate any

¶37

W.P.(C) No.11475 of 2015

¶38

¶39

observations of this Court.

¶40

The writ petition would stand disposed of. The parties

¶41

shall suffer their respective costs.

¶42

Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶43

¶44

// true copy //

¶45

P.A to Judge

The General Manager v. T.L Rajeswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager v. T.L Rajeswari

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

Biju Shaikh Vs the Secretary

Usha K.S Vs the State of Kerala

Veerankutty Sahib Vs the Secretary, Pazhayannur Grama Panchayath

Sumathiamma Vs Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu Taluk

Prof. D. Aravindakshan Vs Union of India

Shibu Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya