Dismissed

Princy v. the Registrar of Co-Oiperative Societies

Kerala HC6 Dec 2018WP(C)/28350/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for employment assistance under Rule 188A of Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules for petitioner's uncle's post. Court dismissed petition as 3rd respondent acknowledged eligibility for Attender post and directed registration to process appointment with time frame.

What did the court decide?

Directed 3rd respondent to take steps for appointment as Attender within 2 months after Registrar approval.

Princy Vs the Registrar of Co-Oiperative… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 28350 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PRINCY, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.PREMA N., THOTTAPURA HOUSE, NOORANI P.O, CHANDANAKURUSSI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.MOHANAKANNAN K. SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, RAJAJI NAGAR, MARKET ROAD, STATUE, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001

¶11

2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CIVIL LINES, 3RD FLOOR, KANNUR - 670 002.

¶12

3 THE REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE OF KERALA LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SPCA ROAD, P.B.NO.407, KANNUR - 67002.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI. BIMAL K. NATH, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WPC 28350 OF 2018 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner's uncle Sri.N. Vijayan died on 24.12.2002, while working as Draftsman in Kanjikode unit of the 3^rd respondent Regional Agro Industrial Development Co-operative Society, which is a Society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent to give him employment assistance, as applied for in Exts.P1 and P2 applications, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the petitioner is appointed by the 3^rd respondent under employment assistance scheme, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶18

On 29.08.2018, when this writ petition came up for

¶19

admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2. Urgent notice on admission by speed post was ordered to the 3^rd respondent, returnable within two weeks. The learned Senior Government Pleader was directed

¶20

WPC 28350 OF 2018 3

¶21

to get instructions.

¶22

Thereafter, on 17.09.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent and also the learned Government Pleader sought time to file counter affidavits. Three weeks' time was granted to file counter affidavits.

¶23

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the said counter affidavit read thus;

¶24

“5. As regard the averment contained in Paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is submitted that there is only one post of peon in the 3^rd respondent, RAIDCO, which was sanctioned as supernumerary to accommodate an employee. The lowest post sanctioned to the 3^rd respondent is that of Attender and therefore the petitioner is eligible to be appointed in that post under dying harness scheme.

¶25

As regards the averment in Para 8 of the petition it is submitted that the 3^rd respondent submitted the certificate showing that the petitioner was a dependent of the deceased employee and income certificate of the petitioner as per letter dated 17/08/2018 to the 1^st respondent, copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R3(f) .

¶26

As regards the averments in Paragraph 9 of the petitioner it is submitted that the petitioner is fully eligible to get employment under dying harness scheme as contemplated in Rule 188A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The 3^rd

¶27

WPC 28350 OF 2018 4

¶28

respondent has informed the facts that there is no post of peon other than the one post sanctioned as supernumerary in the RAIDCO and explained the situation for applying for appointment to the post of Attender as per Exhibit R3(5).”

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶30

learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶31

As already noticed, the claim made by the petitioner is for employment assistance under Rule 188A of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rule s. Now, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent, wherein it has been stated that the lowest post sanctioned to the 3^rd respondent Society is that of Attender and therefore, the petitioner is eligible to be appointed in that post, under employment assistance, contemplated in Rule 188A.

¶32

The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, would point out that by Ext.P12, the 1^st respondent Registrar has directed the 2^nd respondent Joint Registrar to take necessary steps on the claim made by the petitioner for employment assistance, under Rule 188A, after obtaining the certificate as provided under sub-rules (4) and (5) of the said Rule.

¶33

WPC 28350 OF 2018 5

¶34

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of in view of the statement made in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent that, the petitioner is eligible for employment assistance under Rule 188A to the post of Attender in the said Society. It is for the 3^rd respondent Society to take necessary steps in this regard after obtaining approval from the 1^st respondent.

¶35

If any such request is made, the 1^st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the 3^rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, if the petitioner is duly qualified.

¶36

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

WPC 28350 OF 2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 29/10/2009.

¶43

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION WITH APPLICATION DATED 9/9/2010. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 8/3/2012. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1/8/2013. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 10/11/2009. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR DATED 30/7/2013. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NON-MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DATED 6/5/2014 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/10/2016. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 6/2/2017. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD DATED 2/5/2017. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD DATED 7/5/2017. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22/6/2017.

¶44

WPC 28350 OF 2018 7

¶45

3RD RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION. EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.04.2015. EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.06.2016. EXHIBIT R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 07.12.2016. EXHIBIT R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.05.2017. EXHIBIT R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.08.2018.

¶47

TRUE COPY

¶48

P.A. TO JUDGE

Princy v. the Registrar of Co-Oiperative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Princy v. the Registrar of Co-Oiperative Societies

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

The Board of Directors, Kozhipally Service Co-Operative Bank Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operatives (General)

The Managing Committee Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Mohanan Velayudhan Vs Inchiany Service Co-Operative Service Co-Operative Bank

Nasir K.U. Vs State of Kerala

A.L.Babu Vs the Idukki District Taxi Drivers Co-Operative Society Limited

Najeeb V.B Vs Regional Transport Officer