Allowed

K.Sathyanathan v. the North Malabar Gramin Bank

Kerala HC6 Jun 2016WP(C)/26616/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A former bank manager filed a writ petition seeking arrears of salary and allowances from 01.11.2002 to 15.10.2004 following a pay revision. The bank withheld payment citing a past pending dispute regarding alleged excess pay during the petitioner's tenure as an Accountant.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent bank to pay the admitted benefits due for salary revision within four months and to pay interest at 9% per annum from 18.11.2005 till the date of actual payment.

K.Sathyanathan Vs the North Malabar Gramin Bank — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/16TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).NO. 26616 OF 2008 (R)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.SATHYANATHAN (FORMER MANAGER),

¶8

NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE,, P.B.NO.59, KANNUR., MENAPRATH HOUSE, MELANGOT, P.O.KANHANGAD,, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671315.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO

¶10

SMT.N.SHOBHA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE,, P.B.NO.59, KANNUR-670001.

¶13

2. THE CHAIRMAN, THE NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.59, KANNUR 670001.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).NO. 26616 OF 2008 (R)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.11.2005 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2^ND RESPONDENT

¶20

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.10.2006 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2^ND RESPONDENT

¶21

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 18.01.2007

¶22

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.3.2007 OF THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶23

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.10.2007 OF THE PETITIONER

¶24

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 14.07.2008 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2^ND RESPONDENT

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶26

//TRUE COPY//

¶27

P A TO JUDGE

¶28

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.26616 of 2008

¶29

............................................................. Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner was appointed as a Senior Clerk in the 1^st respondent bank in the year 1977. He was later promoted as an Accountant (Officer) in the year 1979. It is stated that he resigned from the 1^st respondent bank while functioning as a Branch Manager, with effect from 15.10.2004. After the petitioner left the services of the respondent bank, the salary of the bank staff was revised with effect from 01.11.2002. Consequent to the said pay revision, the petitioner became entitled to get arrears of salary for the period from 01.11.2002 to 15.10.2004. While the respondent bank does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was entitled to the arrears of pay for the period aforementioned, by Ext.P4 letter of the 2^nd respondent, which was in response to the representation preferred by the petitioner for granting him the benefits of the pay revision, the petitioner was informed that on account of a dispute that was pending resolution, and in connection with which the respondents had a case that the petitioner had been paid excess

¶32

W.P.(C). No.26616 of 2008

¶33

-2-

¶34

amounts towards salary while functioning as an Accountant, the arrears of pay for the period from 01.11.2002 to 15.10.2004 could be released to the petitioner only after resolution of the former dispute. Although, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 representation before the Chairman of the respondent bank, and thereafter, caused a lawyers notice to be issued to the said Chairman, when there was no reply forthcoming from the said authority, the petitioner approached this Court through the present writ petition seeking, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to release the arrears of salary and allowances due to the petitioner for the period from 01.11.2002 to 15.10.2004, together with interest at the rate of 12% from the due date till the date of payment.

¶35

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein reference is made to an O.P.No.17111/1992 that was filed by the petitioner and others challenging the fixation of seniority. It is stated that the said O.Ps were dismissed and the said judgment was confirmed in W.A.No.172/2000. It is stated that the petitioner was thereafter a party in a review application numbered as R.P.No.865 of 2005, seeking a review of the

¶36

-3-

¶37

W.P.(C). No.26616 of 2008

¶38

judgment in W.A.No.172 of 2000 with regard to the issue of recovery of excess pay made to them, and the Division Bench dismissed the review petition by judgment dated 10.06.2005. It is stated to be on this basis that the respondent bank has now decided to recover the excess pay paid to the petitioner. It is relevant to note, however, that the counter affidavit of the respondent bank does not give any indication with regard to any demand made on the petitioner for recovery of this alleged excess amount.

¶39

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank.

¶40

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, this is a case where the benefits available to the petitioner consequent to the pay revision for the period from 01.11.2002 to 15.10.2004 is not in dispute. The stand of the respondent bank is only that, consequent to a dispute with regard to inter se seniority of the

¶41

-4-

¶42

W.P.(C). No.26616 of 2008

¶43

petitioner and others, there could have been a possibility that the petitioner had drawn excess amounts while functioning as an Accountant in the bank. The attempt of the bank appears to be to adjust the excess amounts allegedly paid to the petitioner, from the amounts that are admittedly due and payable to the petitioner consequent to the pay revision with effect from 01.11.2002. While the specific case of the petitioner is that he was never served with any notice demanding a refund of alleged excess amounts paid to him, at any point in time when he was in the service of the 1^st respondent bank, the counter affidavit filed by the respondent bank is also silent with regard to any such demand having been served on the petitioner. That apart, it is seen from the order in the Review Petition, in which the petitioner was also a party, that the Division Bench of this Court had left it open to the petitioners to challenge any demand notice that was served on them in accordance with law. The fact that the petitioner has not challenged any demand notice would also point to the absence of any demand notice as against the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that, the respondent bank is not justified in continuing to withhold the amounts due to the

¶44

-5-

¶45

W.P.(C). No.26616 of 2008

¶46

petitioner consequent to the pay revision, for the period from 01.11.2002 to 15.10.2004.

¶47

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed by directing the respondent bank to pay the admitted benefits due to the petitioner by way of pay revision for the period from 01.11.2002 to 15.10.2004 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respondent bank shall also pay interest on the amounts, admitted by them as payable to the petitioner for the aforementioned period, at the rate of 9% per annum from 18.11.2005 (the date of the first representation by the petitioner seeking the disbursement of the arrears of salary consequent to the pay revision) to the date of actual payment pursuant to the directions in this judgment.

¶48

The writ petition is disposed as above.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

mns/06.06.16

¶53

W.P.(C). No.26616 of 2008

¶54

-6-

K.Sathyanathan v. the North Malabar Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sathyanathan v. the North Malabar Gramin Bank

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

K.G. Devakiamma Vs Omanakuttan

Jitesh Menon Vs Corporation of Cochin

G.Ajith Vs State of Kerala

Murugan.C Vs State of Kerala

Col.(Retd.) N.Sukumaran Vs P.v.Senthil

K.Ganesan Vs Bank of Baroda