Disposed

M.J.Kuriakose v. the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General) Thodupuzha

Kerala HC29 Jul 2016WP(C)/17707/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to consider the Bank's application for exemption from pay revision and to decide within two months after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Bank.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Registrar to consider the exemption application after hearing both parties and deciding within two months.

M.J.Kuriakose Vs the Assistant Registrar of… — 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 29TH DAY OF JULY 2016/7TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 17707 of 2015 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M.J.KURIAKOSE

¶8

MADATHIKANDATHIL,KARIMANNUR P.O, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI 685 581 KARIMANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.967 KARIIMANNUR,IDUKKI (RETIRED)

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶10

SMT.PREETHI KESAVAN SRI.S.K.HARISH SRI.T.C.KRISHNA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) THODUPUZHA IDUKKI DISTRICT PIN 685 584

¶13

2. THE KARIMANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO 967,KARIMANNUR, IDUKKI 685 581 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.VIJULAL R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-07-2016 ALONG WITH WPC NO.22539/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 17707 of 2015 (K)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 25/2/2011 EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16/3/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16/3/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶25

W.P.(C). Nos. 17707 of 2015 & 22539 of 2016

¶26

----------------------------------------

¶27

Dated this the 29^th day of July, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

These writ petitions are intrinsically connected and

¶30

therefore, I propose to pass a common judgment. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.22539/2016 is the second respondent in W.P.(C)No.17707/2015.

¶31

W.P.(C)No.17707/2015

¶32

Petitioner was an employee under the second respondent Bank. He superannuated on 30.11.2011. At the time of superannuation petitioner was working as Senior Clerk. Second respondent is a Class II Primary Co-operative Society. The Government of Kerala by Ext.P1 Government Order revised the salary and other allowances of the State Co-operative employees with effect from 1.4.2009. However, second respondent implemented the said order only on 1.1.2012 onwards. The salary which ought to have

¶33

paid as on 1.4.2009 was given on 1.1.2012. Petitioner was not given the benefit of Ext.P1 Government Order. His

¶34

W.P.(C). No. 17707 of 2015 & 22539 of 2016

¶35

¶36

retrial benefits as well as leave surrender and medical allowances are liable to be re-calculated on the basis on Ext.P1. Even though, the anomaly in fixation of pay was brought to the notice of the first respondent by Ext.P2, no action was taken by the first respondent. It is in this background this writ petition is filed.

¶37

W.P.(C)No. 22539/2016

¶38

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Bank contending that as per Ext.P7 order, the State Government has revised the pay scale of employees in Co-operative Societies. Due to the weak financial condition, the society submitted representation before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies-second respondent seeking exemption from implementing the said pay revision order for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.12.2011. However, representation so filed by the petitioner Bank is refused to be considered by the second respondent on the ground that, the other writ petition filed is pending consideration before this Court.

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C). No. 17707 of 2015 & 22539 of 2016

¶41

Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner

¶42

that Ext.P9 representation can be considered by the second respondent and the pendency of the writ petition is not a bar for taking a decision on the same.

¶43

Heard learned counsel for petitioners in both writ petitions, learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶44

The predominant contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 17707/2015 is that, in spite of the revision of the pay scale the Bank did not care to implement the same in spite of the repeated request made by the petitioner to the Bank as well as the authorities, which constrained the petitioner to approach this Court.

¶45

It is also submitted that, the Bank has submitted Ext.P9 representation seeking exemption after the period of revision of pay provided by the State Government for enhancement of the salary. According to the counsel, the same was done by the Bank on receipt of notice from this

¶46

W.P.(C). No. 17707 of 2015 & 22539 of 2016 4

¶47

Court in the writ petition filed by him. That apart it is also contended that, except the petitioner all other employees of the Bank got the benefit, since they are continuing in service.

¶48

Per contra, the Bank has advanced the contention

¶49

that, there is no prohibition for the Bank for making any application seeking exemption for payment of pay revision at a belated stage and therefore, Ext.P9 application is a competent application pending consideration before the second respondent.

¶50

Taking into account the factual circumstances and also reckoning the circumstances discernible from the documents produced by the respective parties, I think it is only appropriate that the parties are relegated to the authority of the second respondent to consider Ext.P9 application, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the Bank and take a decision on the same within a time frame.

¶51

Therefore, there will be a direction to the second

¶52

W.P.(C). No. 17707 of 2015 & 22539 of 2016 5

¶53

respondent, Registrar of Co-operative Societies to consider Ext.P9 application submitted by the petitioner after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Sri.M.J.Kuriakose and the Bank and take a decision on the same in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that, the contentions put forth by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17707/2015 to the effect that Bank has submitted Ext.P9 application after the period provided in the pay revision order, shall also be taken into consideration with predominance.

¶54

Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶57

dlk/30/7/

M.J.Kuriakose v. the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General) Thodupuzha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.J.Kuriakose v. the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General) Thodupuzha

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

Pullisseri Mohsina Vs Shahjahan K.M.

M.K.Jayasree @ Jaya Vs the Branch Manager,U/S.United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Satheesh Vs Cholamandalam General Insurance Company

Rema.v Vs Vijesh. P.K

Vasudevan.P.v. Vs Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Shamseera Vs State of Kerala