Disposed

Geetha K. v. Vizhavoor Vanitha Co-Op Society Ltd. NO.T-1028

Kerala HC8 Aug 2016WP(C)/6261/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a writ petition for regularisation of service as a saleswoman in a cooperative store. The court held the petition was misconceived because the petitioner had raised a conflicting claim for the post of attender in an earlier case before failing to utilize the liberty granted to approach statutory authorities for alternative benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty to approach statutory authorities for benefits under Circular Nos. 10/2005 and 4/2006 left open.

Geetha K. Vs Vizhavoor Vanitha Co-Op Society Ltd… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/17TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6261 of 2012 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

GEETHA E., COMMISSION AGENT (CONSUMER STORE), VIZHAVOOR VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. T-1028, MALAYAM P.O., MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 571.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. VIZHAVOOR VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.T-1028, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAYAM P.O., MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 571.

¶11

2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NEYYATTINKARA, PIN-695 121.

¶12

3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR R2 & R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.S. SHEEJA.

¶14

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

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 6261 of 2012 (G)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TYPEWRITING ENGLISH HIGHER GRADE DATED 16/11/1989.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TYPEWRITING MALAYALAM HIGHER GRADE DATED 17/10/1991.
EXT.P4	COPY OF THE RECEIPTS EVIDENCING WELFARE FUND CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE SOCIETY FROM 04/12/2001 ONWARDS.
EXT.P5	COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNTS PAID TO THE PETITIONER FROM JUNE 2002 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY DATED 22/06/2001.
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 14/05/2011.
EXT.P7	COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 12/10/2011 FILED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY IN WP(C).NO.14321/2011.
EXT.P8	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.14321/2011 DATED 28/01/2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXT.P9	COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. NO.1/2012/CO-OP. DATED 03/01/2012 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY CO-OPERATIVE (B) DEPARTMENT.
EXT.P10	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/02/2012.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.R1A COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17/05/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPONSE TO EXT.P6 NOTIFICATION.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶26

W.P.(C)NO.6261 OF 2012

¶27

Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking regularisation of the petitioner in the service of the 1^st respondent society. Petitioner is working as commission agent (saleswoman) in the consumer store run by the 1^st respondent society since 2001. According to the petitioner, Welfare Fund contribution is being paid by the society in her account from 2001 onwards. However, she is not granted any benefits of such service including regularisation, salary, commission etc., When a post of attender fell vacant in the society, petitioner claimed appointment against the said post. This was also turned down. Though petitioner has submitted an application for the post of attender, she will not be considered since she attained age of 46 years. It is also urged that after extracting service for 11 years, all legal dues are denied to the

¶30

¶31

W.P.(C)NO.6261 OF 2012

¶32

petitioner. Apparently from Ext.P8 judgment it is clear that, petitioner has approached this court seeking regularisation of the petitioner as an attender. According to the petitioner, in the writ petition pertaining to Ext.P8 judgment the regularization was sought as an attender was a mistake and the petitioner was actually working as a commission agent and she is entitled for regularisation accordingly in terms of Circular No.10/2005 dated 13.04.2005 and Circular No.4/2006 dated 20.02.2006 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is in this background this writ petition is filed.

¶33

1^st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. It is also contended that the present writ petition is filed suppressing material facts and is filed with malafide intentions. That apart, the contention by the petitioner that, she is working as commission agent in the consumer store run by the 1^st respondent society from the year 2001 is denied.

¶34

W.P.(C)NO.6261 OF 2012 3

¶35

According to the 1^st respondent, petitioner was appointed as a temporary deposit collector since 01.04.2002. On 22.06.2002, she deposited Rs.2000/(Rupees two thousand only) in FD account No.54/0203 and started discharging duties as a deposit collector. It is also contended that in W.P.(C) No.14321/2011 filed by the petitioner, she had claimed that she was appointed as an attender in the

¶36

1^st respondent society. According to the 1^st respondent, the claim raised by the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition contradicts with the claim now raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as sought for in the writ petition seeking regularisation with her claim as commission agent working from the year 2001.

¶37

Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, petitioner is continuing in the post as saleswoman since 2001, though the

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C)NO.6261 OF 2012

¶40

normal post is commission agent, she has been discharging the duties as a saleswoman in the society.

¶41

Taking into account the rival submissions made across the bar, the pleadings and documents on record, the sole question to be considered is whether petitioner is entitled for any relief as sought for in the writ petition, namely., regularisation of her service as a saleswoman in the store run by the 1^st respondent society. Admittedly, petitioner has secured Ext.P8 judgment from this court in which the claim raised by the petitioner was that, she had worked as an attender and therefore she is entitled to get regularisation in that post. However, this writ petition is filed seeking regularisation since petitioner has worked as a commission agent (saleswoman) from the year 2001 and therefore she is entitled to regularisation as a saleswoman in the store of the 1^st respondent society. What is discernible from Ext.P8 judgment is that, the claim of attender as well as the claim of commission agent was considered by this

¶42

W.P.(C)NO.6261 OF 2012 5

¶43

court. However it was held, petitioner is not entitled to seek regularisation as attender. But the claim of the petitioner with respect to the commission agent was considered and the said issue was left open and the petitioner was given liberty to approach the statutory authority seeking benefits of circular Nos.10/2005 and 4/2006 if she is eligible for the benefits thereunder. On a reading of the writ petition as well as the reply affidavit, it is categoric and clear that petitioner has not made use of the said opportunity provided by this court in Ext.P8 judgment. In my considered opinion, this writ petition is misconceived. If the petitioner had any claim with respect to the commission agent, she ought to have raised a claim in terms of Ext.P8 judgment. It is evident that, petitioner has not made such claim and therefore I think it is only appropriate that this writ petition can be given a quietus by leaving open the remedy of the petitioner as provided Ext.P8 judgment to approach the concerned authority and seek benefits of circular Nos.10/2005 and 4/2006.

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C)NO.6261 OF 2012

¶46

If any such representation is filed by the petitioner,

¶47

same shall be considered by the competent among the respective statutory authorities without any further delay and at any rate within two months from the date

¶48

of receipt of such a representation.

¶49

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶50

sd/-

¶51

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶52

R.AV

Geetha K. v. Vizhavoor Vanitha Co-Op Society Ltd. NO.T-1028

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha K. v. Vizhavoor Vanitha Co-Op Society Ltd. NO.T-1028

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

V.Biju and 111 Others Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Ramachandran.T.R Vs the Adat Farmer'S Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

The Thodupuzha Primary Co-Op.Agriculture Vs a.P.James

Resmi V.R. Vs the Kerala Co-Operative Development and

G.Suganan Vs the Jt Registrar of Co-Operative

S.Santhakumar Vs the State Transport Authority, Kerala