Disposed

Dinesan M v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jan 2021WP(C)/3175/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition questioning the withholding of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, the High Court of Kerala directed the Deputy Director of Education to hear the petitioner and the Co-operative Societies to determine if a valid consent for adjustment of dues exists under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd Respondent (Deputy Director Education) to hear the petitioner and representatives of the Co-operative Societies to verify consent under Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Socie

Dinesan M Vs the State of Kerala — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942 WP(C).No.3175 OF 2019(V)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

DINESAN M, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, MANOLI HOUSE,VATTOLI.P.O,(VIA)KAKKATTIL, VADAKARA TALUK,KOZHKKKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673507.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶10

2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶11

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION, KOZHIKKODE-673001.

¶12

4 THE HEADMASTER, VADAKKUMPAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL PALERI, PALERI TOWN P.O,VIA KUTTIADY,KOYILANDI TALUK, PIN-673508.

¶13

5 ADDL.R5.CALICUT CITY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAILWAY STATION LINK ROAD, CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT-673002.

¶14

(ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.04.2019 IN

¶15

IA NO.1/19 IN W.P.(C) 3175/19).

¶16

6 ADDL.R6. CALICUT SERVICE CO OPERATIVE TOWN BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.P.KESAVAMENON ROAD, KOZHIKODE-1, PIN-673 001.

¶17

7 ADDL.R7.KUNNUMMAL BLOCK EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEVARKOVIL P.O, KUTTIADY(VIA), KOZHIKODE DIST-673 519

¶18

WPC 3175/19

¶19

¶20

8 ADDL.R8. KUNNUMMAL AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT CO-OP SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEVARKOVIL.P.O , KUTTIADY(VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT673519

¶21

9 ADDL.R9.CHANGAROTH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALERI TOWN.P.O, KUTTIYADY(VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 508.

¶22

10 ADDL.R10.PERAMBRA REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERAMBRA.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 525.

¶23

11 ADDL.R11.VATAKARA TALUK EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TEACHING AND NON TEACHING EMPLOYEES WELFARE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ONTHAM ROAD, OVERBRIDGE, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST673 101.

¶24

12 ADDL.R12. MALABRAR AGRICULTURIST AND WORKERS DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST-673 104.

¶25

13 ADDL.R13. HEALTH AMENITIES MULTIPURPOSE DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THALI, CHALAPPURAM.P.O, CALICUT-2, PIN-673 002.

¶26

(ADDL.R6 TO R13 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 7.11.19 IN IA NO.2/19 IN W.P.(C) 3175/19).

¶27

R5 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR R5 BY ADV. SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN R6 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.HARISH R11 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL R12 BY ADV. SRI.C.H.ABDUL RASAC R12 BY ADV. SRI.U.V.PRADEEPAN R12 BY ADV. JISHAMOL.M.P SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 3175/19

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶33

stating to be aggrieved by the fact that even though he had retired as a Lower Grade Sanskrit

¶34

Teacher from Vadakkumpad Higher Secondary School, Paleri, on 31.05.2018, his Death-cumRetirement Gratuity (DCRG) has not yet been disbursed to him.

¶35

2. The petitioner says that the only

¶36

reason why the 3 rd respondent-Deputy Director of Education (DDE) has withheld his gratuity is because claims are made by the respondent Co-

¶37

operative Societies against him seeking recovery of certain amounts, but he says that this is illegal, since he had not given consent under Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, so as to enable the creditorsBanks to recover any amounts from his DCRG. He

¶38

asserts that as per GO(P)No.P5/60600/2014/DPI,

¶39

dated 10.06.2016, the Director of Public

¶40

¶41

WPC 3175/19

¶42

Instructions (now called the Director of General Education) has stipulated that consent of an employee is necessary for recovery from DCRG of non-Governmental dues. He reiteratingly

¶43

submits that he has given no such consent and

¶44

therefore, that the action of the 3 rd

¶45

respondent in withholding his DCRG is illegal and unlawful.

¶46

3. In response, the learned Standing

¶47

Counsel for the 6 th respondent-Sri.B.S.Swathi

¶48

Kumar, submitted that the assertions of the petitioner are completely untrue and that he has given consent to the effect that the amount due to his client can be recovered from his DCRG. He submitted that his client will be able

¶49

to produce the consent before the 3 rd respondent, if given such an opportunity.

¶50

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the

¶51

other respondents also say that large amounts are due from the petitioner and that they are

¶52

WPC 3175/19

¶53

¶54

entitled to recover it from his DCRG on account of the fact that he has given consent for such action. They, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶55

5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is ineluctable that the sole question that arises in this case is whether the petitioner's DCRG can be withheld and paid to the respondent Co-operative Societies by the 3 rd respondent, as per the provisions of the applicable Act and Rules. Going by the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, and in particular Section 37 thereof, it is only if the petitioner had given a consent that his DCRG can be adjusted against the liabilities or other non-governmental dues, can the 3 rd respondent withhold the same and effect such payment. Obviously, therefore, what is relevant is to verify whether such a consent had been given by the petitioner in the case of the

¶56

WPC 3175/19

¶57

¶58

respondent Co-operative Societies.

¶59

6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the 3 rd respondent must now hear the petitioner, as also the authorised

¶60

representatives of the Co-operative Societies and take a decision as to whether his DCRG can be withheld or paid to the respondent Societies in terms of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.

¶61

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 3 rd respondent to hear the petitioner and the authorised representatives of the respondent Co-operative Societies at 11

¶62

a.m. on 29.01.2021 – on which day, the Societies will be at liberty to produce all the documents in substantiation of their plea that

¶63

they are eligible to recover and adjust the dues from the DCRG of the petitioner thus leading to an appropriate order thereafter as

¶64

expeditiously as is possible, but not later

¶65

WPC 3175/19

¶66

¶67

than one month after the hearing is completed.

¶68

It is needless to say that for the afore

¶69

purpose the petitioner and the representatives of the respondent Banks/Societies shall mark appearance at 11 a.m. before the 3 rd respondent and if, for any reason, the said respondent has any inconvenience to hear them on that day,

¶70

another date will be fixed for such purpose.

¶71

It is further made clear that I have not

¶72

considered the merits of the factual assertions

¶73

of the rival sides in this judgment and that it is fully left open to the 3 rd respondent to take an appropriate decision as per law in terms of the afore directions.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 3175/19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶82

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT ISSUED BY INDIAN AUDIT AND ACCOUNTANT DEPARTMENT DATED 19.06.2018 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.6.16. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LIABILITY PENDING IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS

Dinesan M v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesan M v. the State of Kerala

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

Muhammed Haris K.M Vs State of Kerala

Hariharan K. Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev a.R., Vs State of Kerala

Saji P.K. Vs State of Kerala

C.T.Betty Vs State of Kerala

Ajith K. Thankachan Vs Chief Engineer (Hrd and General)