Remanded

A.V. Snehalatha v. Edamuttam Service Co-Op.Bank LTD.R.305

Kerala HC25 Aug 2016WP(C)/6514/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a bank's refusal to pay her full Provident Fund balance. The Court found records required verification and remanded the matter for reconsideration with an opportunity of hearing within two months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 order set aside; Petitioner directed to verify records and re-consider Ext.P1 representation with an opportunity of hearing within two months.

A.V. Snehalatha Vs Edamuttam Service Co-Op.Bank… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/3RD BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6514 of 2005 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

A.V.SNEHALATHA, W/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 59, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.PERINJANAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 686, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. EDAMUTTAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.R.305, P.O.EDAMUTTAM (680 568), THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶11

2. P.K.SASIDHARAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, (SECRETARY IN CHARGE), EDAMUTTAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.R.305, P.O.EDAMUTTAM 680 568, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

ADDITIONAL R3 IMPLEADED

¶13

3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIIES, CHAVAKKAD.

¶14

*** ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA.15059/2006 DTD.15.7.2008**

¶15

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN

¶16

SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR ADDL. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

WP(C).No. 6514 of 2005 (A)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITION(S) EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRERSENTATION DTD.14.1.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE EPTITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.14.2.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE EPTITIONER.

¶24

EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF REPRERSENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 23.12.2005.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶26

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

¶27

EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER TOWARDS DISBURSAL OF THE WELFARE FUND AMOUNT DTD.24.9.2007.

¶28

EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PF REGISTER OF THE PETITIONER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.6514 of 2005

¶34

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 25^th day of August, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P2 communication issued by the 1^st respondent Bank, whereby the relief sought for by the petitioner in Ext.P1 with respect to payment of balance lying in Provident Fund Account was declined by the 1^st respondent Bank. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

¶37

Petitioner commenced service as a Clerk in the 1^st respondent Bank from 01.01.1972. She became the Secretary in the year 1980 and retired from service on 30.04.2002. While so working, towards the Provident Fund from 1974 onwards amounts were deducted. Towards the Provident Fund of five employees including the petitioner, an amount of Rs.38,000/- was deposited in the District Co-operative Bank, Thriprayar branch. According to the petitioner, the proportionate contribution of the petitioner was Rs.15,000/-. For the benefit of the staff, subsequently this amount was withdrawn and deposited in Nattika Firka Co-operative Rural

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C) No.6514 of 2005

¶40

Bank in the year 1987. Deposit was initially for a period of 5 ½ years. It is stated that in 1992, this amount was doubled as Rs.76,000/- and by 03.10.2004, the total amount was Rs.1,04,000/-. According to the petitioner, the amount of Rs.15,000/- was doubled as Rs.30,000/- with interest, subsequently to Rs.60,000/- and again to Rs.1,20,000/-. Initially towards the interest on two occasions, Rs.45,000/was remitted in the Bank towards Provident Fund account.

¶41

It is further contended that, on 30.04.2002 when the petitioner retired, the balance amount was Rs.29,094/-. On 06.10.2004 from Nattika Firka Co-operative Rural Bank, petitioner is entitled to get Rs.75,000/- towards the proportionate contribution of Rs.3,04,000/-. On 18.09.2004, petitioner applied for the above mentioned amounts of Rs.29,094/- and Rs.75,000/-, thus totalling to Rs.1,04,094/-. But the Secretary in charge of the 1^st respondent put up a note stating that the petitioner is not entitled to get the initial deposit of Rs.15,000/- and according to the Secretary, petitioner is entitled to only Rs.89,094/- altogether. For this amount cheque was issued on 17.11.2004. According to the petitioner, Rs.15,000/- initially deposited is still in the

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C) No.6514 of 2005

¶44

Provident Fund account. It is thus petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 representation which was declined by the 1^st respondent Bank as per Ext.P2 dated 14.02.2005. It is in this background, this writ petition is filed.

¶45

First respondent has filed a counter affidavit basically contending that the claim of the petitioner with respect to the amount of Rs.15,000/- cannot be sustained and the same is made without any basis. The contributory Provident Fund of five employees of the Bank including the petitioner was deposited with Nattika Firka Rural Co-operative Bank. The total deposit initially with the Rural Bank was Rs.38,000/-. Out of this amount, Rs.15,000/- was the accumulated contributory Provident Fund of the petitioner. The deposit was made in a Scheme under which the deposited amount would become double in a span of 5 years. Thus Rs.15,000/- of the petitioner became Rs.30,000/- in 5 years. This was re-deposited under the same scheme and the amount became Rs.60,000/- in the next 5 years. Petitioner has taken an advance of Rs.48,740/- from her P.F Account. The balance outstanding in the petitioner's Provident Fund account at the time of her retirement was Rs.29,094/-. The said amount

¶46

¶47

W.P.(C) No.6514 of 2005

¶48

alone with the amount deposited in the Rural Bank worked out to Rs.89,094/- and the same was paid to the petitioner. Thus, it is the contention of the Bank that the claim raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained under law. Moreover, it is also contended by the 1^st respondent that a claim of this nature cannot be raised in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶49

First respondent has also produced a statement of account, evident from Ext.R1(b). According to the 1^st respondent, whatever amounts are deposited in the Provident Fund account is discernible from the said document. Therefore, it is the contention of the 1^st respondent that petitioner has not made out a case warranting interference of this Court by exercising the power of judicial review, and that too, in Ext.P2 order passed by the 1^st respondent Bank.

¶50

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent Bank, perused the documents and pleadings.

¶51

The material question to be considered in this writ petition is only with respect to the legality of Ext.P2 order passed by 1^st respondent Bank. Ext.P2 is a short and crisp

¶52

W.P.(C) No.6514 of 2005 5

¶53

order, wherein it is stated that, pursuant to receipt of Ext.P1 representation submitted by the petitioner, Bank has made verifications by going through the documents and it is found that no amounts are due to the petitioner from the 1^st respondent Bank. From the documents produced by the petitioner in this writ petition and the additional documents produced along with an application seeking amendment of the writ petition, I do not think that petitioner has made out a case so as to conclusively arrive at a conclusion that amounts are due to the petitioner.

¶54

However, the thrust of the contention made by the 1^st respondent is relying upon Ext.R1(b) statement of accounts, admittedly, a Provident Fund Deposit Ledger. Even though certain withdrawals and deposits are seen from the statement of accounts, this Court is unable to arrive at a conclusion as to the exact nature of the deposits and withdrawals made and other aspects by verifying the said document.

¶55

Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that a quietus can be given to the issue by directing the 1^st respondent Bank to re-consider Ext.P1 representation by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for

¶56

¶57

W.P.(C) No.6514 of 2005

¶58

verifying records, deliberating the issue with the petitioner and then arrive at a decision. In my considered opinion, if such a course is adopted by the 1^st respondent Bank, the Bank would be in a position to convincingly establish or the petitioner will be at a position to point out to the Bank that amount as claimed in this writ petition is due. In order to enable the petitioner, with respect to the points put forth in this writ petition, and the Bank to re-consider the whole issue, Ext.P2 order passed by the Bank is set aside and I direct the 1^st respondent Bank to consider Ext.P1 representation and take a decision on the same in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and also permitting the petitioner to verify the records in the presence of the officials of the Bank and then arrive at a logical conclusion, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶59

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶60

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶61

//true copy//

¶62

P.S. to Judge

¶63

St/25.08.2016

A.V. Snehalatha v. Edamuttam Service Co-Op.Bank LTD.R.305

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.V. Snehalatha v. Edamuttam Service Co-Op.Bank LTD.R.305

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savithri.N.P Vs K.C.Mohanan Nambiar

Fawas Shameem Vs Sathyavathy

Soman Pillai Vs Registrar of Co-Op. Societies

Abdul Saleem Vs Shaji

K.E.Noushad` Vs Sundharan.P.D

The Moolathara Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies