Dismissed

Sobhana v. Kerala State Co-Op Employees

Kerala HC8 Jul 2016WP(C)/10850/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order denying pension credits for the petitioner's probation period. The Court held that Clause 19 of the relevant Scheme, including its proviso, only applies to the date of the Scheme's implementation, not retrospectively to periods after its inception.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned order quantifying service at 280 months was upheld.

Sobhana Vs Kerala State Co-Op Employees — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2016/17TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10850 of 2011 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SOBHANA, ANDISSERY PARAMBIL HOUSE, POYYA P.O., MALA VIA., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.P.JACOB

¶9

SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, P.B. NO. 85, KALA NIVAS, T.C NO. 27/156, 157, CHINMAYA LANE, KUNNUMPURAM, NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2. THE THURUTHIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 1789, THURUTHIPURAM P.O., KODUNGALLOOR, PIN - 680 667, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -16.

¶14

R1 BY ADVS. SRI. K.R. SUNIL, SC SRI.P.V.MOHANAN, SC R2 BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

...2/-

¶18

WP(C).No. 10850 of 2011 (E)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXT.P1	: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 1558 DATED 29.5.08.
EXT.P2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 1753 DATED 24.7.08.
EXT.P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER IN G.O.(P) NO. 53/2001/CO-OP DATED 7.3.2001.
EXT.P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATED 16.8.08.
EXT.P5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. PB PPO 746/EKM DATED 30.11.2010.
EXT.P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 15.7.2010.
EXT.P7	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 18.8.2010.
EXT.P8	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PENSION BOARD DATED 21.2.2011.
EXT.P9	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PENSION BOARD TO THE PETITIONER DATED 8.3.2011.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.10850 of 2011

¶28

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P5 order, whereby the request of the petitioner was declined to quantify the period of service for pension taking into account the period of probation undergone by the petitioner, and for other related reliefs. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus:

¶31

Petitioner was an employee of the 2^nd respondent

¶32

Bank and retired from service on 31.01.2009, on attaining superannuation. According to the petitioner, she is having a total service of 292 months eligible for the purpose of calculation of pension. Even though the application for sanctioning pension was submitted very early before retirement, sanctioning of pension was delayed due to inaction on the part of the respondents. In that circumstances, 2^nd respondent had approached this Court and secured a judgment in W.P.(C) No.24989 of 2010 against recovery proceedings

¶33

initiated by the 1^st respondent. According to the 1^st

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C) No.10850 of 2011

¶36

respondent, petitioner is entitled to get the eligible service at 280 months. Thereupon, 1^st respondent has passed Ext.P5 order declining relief to the petitioner. It is thus challenging Ext.P5, petitioner has approached this Court.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respective counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

¶39

contentions raised in the writ petition and vehemently contended that, as provided under clause 19 of the Kerala Cooperative Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994, she is entitled for the probationary period calculated for the purpose of quantifying eligible service for calculating the pension. Therefore, the question revolves round under Clause 19 of the Scheme. On a reading of the provisions of Clause 19 of the Scheme, it is categoric and clear that an employee is entitled to get the benefit only from the date of enrollment as a member of the Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to 3^rd proviso to Clause 19 (1), which reads thus:

¶40

“Provided also that an employee who was on probation and on whose behalf the Contributory Provident Fund contribution has not been remitted at

¶41

W.P.(C) No.10850 of 2011 3

¶42

the time of implementation of the scheme, such period of probation shall also qualify for pension, if proportionate employer's contribution together with interest thereon has been credited to the Pension Fund.”

¶43

On a reading of the said proviso, it is categoric and clear that the said proviso applies on the date of inception of the Scheme and not beyond that. That apart, it is clear from the provisions, even if there is enough and more service to the petitioner, she is not entitled to get pension for all the period taking into account the total service rendered, the date of enrollment being the criteria. In that view of the circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to get any reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

¶44

Resultantly, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.

¶45

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶46

//true copy//

¶47

P.S. to Judge

¶48

St/08.07.2016

Sobhana v. Kerala State Co-Op Employees

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sobhana v. Kerala State Co-Op Employees

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

Babu E.T. Vs Rahoof

Rahim Vs the State of Kerala

Kelambeth Gangadharan Vs the Tellicherry Taluk Co-Operative Marketing and Processing Society

Radhamaniyamma Vs Arbitrator/Junior Inspector

Private Bus Operators Association Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Wayanad

V.K.Mathew Vs the Deputy Director, Diary Development Department