Allowed

Vishnu R. v. the Eramalloor Servic Co-Operative Bank Limited

Kerala HC30 Nov 2016WP(C)/669/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this compassionate appointment case, the petitioner was initially appointed as a peon. The Registrar ordered termination from peon post to clerk post due to lack of prior approval. The High Court held the Registrar did not apply his mind correctly and allowed the petitioner to be appointed as a clerk with effect from the original appointment date.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Registrar is set aside. The petitioner's appointment as clerk is approved with effect from 12.8.2011.

Vishnu R. Vs the Eramalloor Servic… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 669 of 2013 (g)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VISHNU R, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, VYKUNDAM, PATTANAKKAD.P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688531. (PEON, ERAMALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 1175, ERAMALLOOR.P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA)

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE ERAMALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO. 1175, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERAMALLOOR.P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688537.

¶11

2. THE PART-TIME ADMINISTRATOR, ERAMALLOOR SERVICED CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO. 1175,ERAMALLOOR.P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688537.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688524.

¶13

4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶14

5. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR R3 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI M.V.ANANDAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

K.V.

WPC 669 OF 2013:

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 29 7 2011.

¶22

P2: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BANK DATED 12.8.2011.

¶23

P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO PB/EM 2012/ADMN/1625/ALP DATED 30.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD.

¶24

P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO WB/ADMN/ALP/205/12 DATED 28.1.2012 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES WELFARE BOARD.

¶25

P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO CRP(1)7726/11 DATED 9/4/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶26

P6: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO 31 DATED 27.8.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

P7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO CRP(1) 7726/2011 DATED 16/10/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶28

P8: COPY OF THE ORDER E.M (5)51658/12 DATED 10-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶29

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶34

=========================

¶35

W.P.(C).No.669/2013

¶36

¶37

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2016

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment to the

¶40

post of peon on the death of his mother L.Geetha, with the first

¶41

respondent/bank. It was in the month of April, 2011. The bank

¶42

considered the application and appointed the petitioner as peon with

¶43

effect from 12.8.2011. Before appointing the petitioner, the bank by

¶44

Ext.P1 resolution dated 29.7.2011 sought the concurrence of the Joint

¶45

Registrar. By Ext.P5, the Joint Registrar raised a query as to why the

¶46

petitioner has not been appointed as clerk even though he had

¶47

sufficient qualification. By Ext.P6, the bank decided to appoint the

¶48

petitioner as junior clerk. Ext.P6 is dated 27.8.2012. Ext.P7 is the

¶49

W.P.(C).No.669/2013

¶50

-:2:-

¶51

recommendation of the Joint Registrar. However, by Ext.P8, the

¶52

Registrar of Co-operative Societies, holding that the petitioner was

¶53

appointed in the post of peon with effect from 28.4.2011 and the

¶54

decision to appoint the petitioner was taken by the bank only on

¶55

29.7.2011 and further that it was done without prior approval of the

¶56

Registrar, ordered that his appointment was liable to be interfered. It was further ordered that since the petitioner was entitled to be

¶57

appointed as clerk, he should be appointed in the post of clerk by

¶58

terminating him from the post of peon. This order is under challenge

¶59

in this writ petition.

¶60

First of all, it is to be noted that nowhere in the order it is

¶61

discernible as to how the Registrar has preferred the date of appointment of the petitioner as 28.4.2011. Even going by the

¶62

W.P.(C).No.669/2013

¶63

-:3:-

¶64

appointment letter of the petitioner, Ext.P2, the date of appointment

¶65

is 12.8.2011. In that scenario, this court is of the view that in the light

¶66

of the resolution dated 29.7.2011, it has to be concluded that the

¶67

bank sought concurrence of the Joint Registrar prior to his appointment. As seen from Ext.P4 proceedings and P5

¶68

communication of the Joint Registrar, the Joint Registrar has not raised any questions regarding prior concurrence. The only issue that

¶69

was taken up was regarding the appointment of the petitioner in the

¶70

post of peon instead of appointing him as a clerk. In fact, the Registrar has issued Ext.P8 order without considering the issue and without application of mind. At the best, in the impugned order, the Registrar could have directed the bank to give all benefits available to

¶71

the petitioner in the post of clerk instead of peon. Therefore, this

¶72

W.P.(C).No.669/2013

¶73

-:4:-

¶74

court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be approved in

¶75

the post of clerk with effect from the date of appointment in the post

¶76

of peon, i.e. 12.8.2011. As there is no other objection as regards the

¶77

petitioner's appointment and in view of the fact that the bank has no objection in appointing the petitioner as clerk, the impugned order is

¶78

set aside. The petitioner's appointment as clerk shall be approved with effect from 12.8.2011.

¶79

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶82

Vishnu R. v. the Eramalloor Servic Co-Operative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu R. v. the Eramalloor Servic Co-Operative Bank Limited

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

Pathumma Vs Safeeya

Rev. Fr. Hypolitus Vs Prashant Nair

P.K. Mohanan Vs R. Girija

Basheer K.M. and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

The Kerala State Co-Operative Coir Marketing Federation Limited Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Limited

Madeena Educational Vs State of Kerala