Allowed

Olarikkara Ksheera Vyavasaya Sahakarana v. Baby Sarojam

Kerala HC18 Jul 2017WA/489/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal disposed of a writ petition directing pension consideration. The Co-operative Society appealed, claiming the former sole-emplyee/Secretary failed to enroll herself. The appellate court allowed the appeal, holding that failure to enroll by the responsible employee post-retirement precludes pension claims.

What did the court decide?

The order of the learned Single Judge directing submission of pension papers and payment of pension is set aside.

Olarikkara Ksheera Vyavasaya Sahakarana Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2017/27TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶6

WA.No. 489 of 2017 () IN WP(C).6974/2014

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6974/2014 DATED 24-06-2016

¶8

APPELLANT(S):

¶9

OLARIKKARA KSHEERA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD.NO.R55 (D), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PULLAZHII P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680012.

¶10

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

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. BABY SAROJAM, RETIRED SECRETARY, OLARIKKARA KSHEERA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD.NO.R 55 (D), P.O.PULLAZHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680012, RESIDING AT THEKKATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KAREEKKAD P.O., THRISSUR-680519.

¶13

2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.B.NO.85, KALA NIVAS, T.C.27/156, 157, CHINMAYA LANE, KUNNUMPURAM, NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KSHEERA DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR-680001.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. TEKCHAND R2 BY SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE EMPL

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Sou.

¶18

Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ &

¶19

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

¶20

W.A. No. 489 of 2017

¶21

--------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2017

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ

¶24

Appellants are the respondents in the writ proceedings. The first respondent is the writ petitioner. We heard both the parties and with their consent we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.

¶25

The only contention that is raised in this appeal is with regard to the liability of the appellant co-operative society to pay contributory pension to the first respondent, who was the writ petitioner. Learned Single Judge virtually directed the pension authority to consider the matter, and upon submission of papers, to forward the case of the petitioner with a recommendation for payment of contributory pension. The co-operative society, being aggrieved, has filed this intra court appeal. It is submitted on behalf of the co-operative society that the learned Single Judge erred in issuing such a direction in as much as the writ petitioner, who was the only paid employee of the Co-operative society and the Secretary, was herself responsible for

¶26

W.A.489/17 2

¶27

maintaining Service Book and other details. The writ petitioner/first respondent was never joined in Contributory Pension Scheme. She never raised this issue till long after her superannuation. It is not possible now to reverse the clock and pay pension to the writ petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that it was an employer's duty to enroll the employee for the Contributory Pension Scheme and having failed to do so, the employee cannot deprive the employer for pensionary benefits.

¶28

We have considered the matter and in our view, the contention on behalf of the appellant is correct. As a general rule, it is the responsibility of the employer to ensure that employee is enrolled in the relevant Contributory Pension Scheme. But here, it was the writ petitioner herself, who was the sole paid employee and the Secretary of the Co-operative Society. She never claimed the same nor she ever required the co-operative society to make her join such a scheme. Now, after retirement, no such account can at all be opened. The writ petitioner must blame herself. She being a responsible officer and in fact the only paid officer in the co-operative society, it was her duty to ensure compliance and failure in

¶29

W.A.489/17 3

¶30

proper compliance would not enure to her benefit. Thus after superannuation no pension account can be opened much less in case of Contributory Pension Scheme. Thus to the extent indicated above, the order of learned Single Judge directing the submission of pension papers and payment of pension thereafter cannot be sustained and the same is set aside, and to the extent indicated above, the appeal stands allowed.

¶31

Sd/Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Judge

¶34

sou.19/7. // True copy //

Olarikkara Ksheera Vyavasaya Sahakarana v. Baby Sarojam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Olarikkara Ksheera Vyavasaya Sahakarana v. Baby Sarojam

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

Markose T.G Vs the District Collector

Gopika Govindan Vs State of Kerala

Rupesh Ravindran Vs State of Kerala

The Regional Transport Authority Vs Shaju

Sarojini P.G Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Pradeep Kumar K