Allowed

P.M.Malathy v. Alappuzha District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC12 Nov 2015WP(C)/24608/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding family welfare fund benefits, the petitioner challenged the withholding of funds due to an employee's failure to deposit a risk premium. The court held that without a contract or statutory provision, the bank could not withhold legally due amounts and directed the bank to pay the balance within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first and second respondents to pay the petitioner the balance amount due under the Welfare Fund Scheme within one month of receiving the judgment.

P.M.Malathy Vs Alappuzha District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/21ST KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 24608 of 2014 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.M.MALATHY RETIRED BRANCH MANAGER ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. PUTHANANGADI BRANCH, PUTHANANGADI P.O., CHERTHALA RESIDING AT NADUVATHUKALARICKAL, 'PRANAVAM' MARUTHORVATTOM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

¶9

SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.V.VARGHESE SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD HEAD OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688001 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶12

2. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES' WELFARE FUND ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. HEAD OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

3. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE FUND BOARD HEAD OFFICE, TC 25/357(4), GANDHARIAMMA KOVIL ROAD STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA, SC, KERALA CO.OP. DEVP. AND WELFARE FUND

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,ALAPPUZHA DIST.CO.OP BANK R3 BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN, SC, KCDWFB

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

avk

¶18

WP(C).No. 24608 of 2014 (A)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE WELFARE FUND RULES OF DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK, ALAPPUZHA.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.23-5-2014. SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ADCB/ADM/5799 2014-15 DT.4-72014 OF R1.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT.17-7-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK, ALAPPUZHA.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.31-1-2013 IN WA 1342/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

avk

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶31

--------------------------------------W.P.(C).No. 24608 of 2014

¶32

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2015

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner challenges Ext.P3, a

¶35

communication dated 4.7.2013 by which she was informed that an amount of Rs.1,54,315/- has been withheld from the Family Welfare Fund amount due to her, on account of the fact that there had been delay in depositing the risk fund premium. The short facts involved in the writ petition disclose that the petitioner while working as Branch Manager in the first respondent bank at Puthanangadi Branch, Cherthala, retired from service on 30.11.2013. She was granted all her benefits except an amount of Rs.3,91,861/- which was due from Alappuzha District Co-Operative Bank Employee's Welfare Fund Scheme. Despite the demand made, no action was taken by the Bank in releasing the amount and the petitioner submitted a representation and while no action was taken in the matter, petitioner was served with Ext.P3 notice. It was interalia stated that while the petitioner was in charge of the Branch on 29.6.2013 an

¶36

W.P.(C).No. 24608 of 2014 2 amount of Rs.375/- was collected from one Sri.K.P.Prakasan towards risk fund premium on his taking a loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- from the bank. The said amount was not credited to the risk fund account. The loanee thereafter passed away and the legal heirs of the loanee applied for financial assistance from the risk fund. Since the legal heirs are entitled for the maximum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- along with the interest of Rs.4,315/-, the officers who committed default in crediting the collected premium in the risk fund are liable for the same and accordingly the said amount had been withheld. It is indeed contented by the petitioner that there is no provision either under the scheme or under any other guidelines or statute which enable the respondent bank to withhold the amount from the Welfare Fund Scheme. No attempt has been made by the respondent bank to take any action which enables them to withhold said amount which is legally due to the petitioner. Hence the writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 as well as for a direction to bank to pay the amount.

¶37

W.P.(C).No. 24608 of 2014 3

¶38

During the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order was passed directing the bank to withhold Rs.1,54,315/- and to pay the balance amount. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submitted that after withholding the aforesaid amount, the balance amount had already been paid. Counter affidavit has been filed supporting the stand taken in Ext.P3.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and third respondent.

¶40

Though it is contented that they were entitled to withhold the said amount from the Family Welfare Fund Scheme, no contract or statutory provision is brought to the notice of this Court to recover any amount legally due to the petitioner. Though it might be correct that the persons who delayed depositing the premium to the risk fund account could be made liable, unless some action is taken by the bank under law mulcting the liability on the petitioner, it is not possible to withhold

¶41

W.P.(C).No. 24608 of 2014 4

¶42

such amount. It is apparent that there is no such statute; rule or contract in that regard. The remedy of the respondent bank was to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and even by approaching the Civil Court.

¶43

Under such circumstances, this writ petition is only to be allowed and accordingly there will be a direction to the first and second respondent to pay the petitioner the balance amount due to her under the Alappuzha District Co-Operative Bank Employee's Welfare Fund Scheme. The payment shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. This however is subject to the right of the respondent 1 and 2 to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law.

¶44

Sd/A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

PA TO JUDGE

¶47

avk

P.M.Malathy v. Alappuzha District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Malathy v. Alappuzha District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

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

Shyju K.R and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others

T.Grace Thankadurai Vs the Munnar Grama Panchayat

R.Suseendranathan Vs Vakkom Farmers Service Co-Operative Bank

Thankam Paul Vs State of Kerala

Babu Joseph Vs the Regional Passport Officer

V.M.Sasidharan Vs Addl. District Magistrate Kottayam