In a writ appeal, the Kerala State Co-operative Employees' Pension Board challenged an Upa Lokayukta order mandating pension payment and interest. The court held the board could not shift liability for the bank's default on contributions to the pensioner, as the Lok Ayukta's findings did not warrant interference.
None.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C).No.12470of 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 19TH ASWINA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 12470 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES' PENSION BOARD KALA NIAS, T.C. NO.27.156,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 ELIZABETH B.E.BHAVAN, PALLIVILA,PUTHUVAKKAL, KULATHAMAL VILLAGE,KATTAKODE PIN-695572, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE NEYYATTINKARA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. NO.T.NO.931, NEYYATTINKARA PIN-695121 3 KERALA LOK AYUKTA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001 BY ADVS. SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR FOR R1 SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R2 SRI.BINDUDAS.M.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.12470of 2017
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of October, 2022
SHAJI P.CHALY,J
This writ petition is filed by the 1st respondent in Complaint No.915/2016D on the files of the Kerala Upa Lokayukta challenging Exhibit P9 order, whereby the following directions were issued:
“3. It is held that the total amount that stands credited in the account of the complainant is Rs.542282/- + Rs.15,971/- + Rs.1,616/- totalling to Rs.5,59,869/- and that is sufficient deposit to satisfy all dues towards the Pension Board payable by the complainant. Consequently. therefore, the first respondent shall make payment of pension to the complainant forthwith. On account of illegal detention of pension for the period from December, 2014 onwards the Pension Board shall pay interest on the pension amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which each monthly pension fell due till the date of actual payment. The payment shall positively be effected within two months from today and a statement shall be filed showing the calculation of interest on each monthly pension to substantiate that the amount disbursed is strictly in accordance with the direction aforesaid. I am constrained to observe that the officials of the Pension Board were unnecessarily and without any justification delaying disbursement of pension to the complainant on flimsy reasons, knowing fully well that the amount deposited is the correct amount payable but contending that the amount is not sufficient inflating the amount including interest for the reason that it is not paid from the date of the
W.P.(C).No.12470of 2017
3
concerned government orders granting arrear D.A or revision of salary as the case may be.
4.The case projected by the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has not paid
W.P.(C).No.12470of 2017 4
the entire contribution to the Pension Fund Board on account of the 1st respondent; and therefore the petitioner had issued a demand notice to the 2nd respondent bank. However, the amount was not paid. It is the further case of the petitioner that 1st respondent has filed a complaint before the LokAyukta claiming full pension contending that the entire contribution has been made by the 2nd respondent, however, the said submission of the 1st respondent is not correct since the bank has failed to pay the contribution in accordance with the salary paid to the 1st respondent on the basis of the enhancement of salary based on Exhibit P1 Pay Revision Order and Pay Fixation dated 23.5.2005.
W.P.(C).No.12470of 2017
5
Department.
W.P.(C).No.12470of 2017
6
the petitioner has filed a Statement of Accounts showing the amount due from the 2nd respondent bank and according to the petitioner, even now an amount of Rs.90,167/- is due from the bank to the petitioner on account of the 1st respondent pensioner, inclusive of interest.
“2(k) “maladministration” means action taken or purporting to have been taken in the exercise of administrative functions in any case where,--
(i) such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such
W.P.(C).No.12470of 2017
7
wilful negligence alone but undue delay or inaction are defined to be maladministration. It is an admitted fact that there was delay on the part of the Pension Board to pay the full pension to the 1st respondent. It may be true that there was negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent bank to pay the contribution to the Pension Fund Board on the basis of the recovery effected from the salary of the 1st respondent. But the delay on the part of the bank to remit the amount to the Pension Fund Board cannot be attributed against the 1st respondent because as per the scheme, the duty to pay the contribution to the Pension Fund Board is imposed upon the 2nd respondent bank.
it is clear that amounts were due from the 2nd respondent bank from the year 1997 to the Pension Fund Board. It is an admitted fact that Exhibit P2 demand notice was issued by the Pension Fund Board against the 2nd respondent bank to pay an amount of Rs.1,57,678/- due after remittance of an amount of Rs.5,42,282/- and interest @ 24% from 1.9.2015 onwards.
W.P.(C).No.12470of 2017 8
is also equally important to note that the 2nd respondent has not challenged Exhibit P2 demand notice before any authority or any statutory forum. Which thus means, the demand raised by the Pension Fund Board is admitted to be due from the 2nd respondent bank. It is also equally important to note that if any bank fails to pay to the Pension Fund Board, the Pension Fund Board is entitled to recover the amount @ 24% interest; in our view, this is for the purpose of working out the scheme to pay pension to the pensioners of the Co-operative Societies. When that is the intention behind the Pension Fund Scheme, it cannot be said that the action initiated by the pensioner against the 2nd respondent bank is in any manner bad or illegal. When contributions are due on account of an employee, the liability is that of the 2nd respondent bank and under no circumstances, the lethargy or inaction on the part of the bank can pass on to the beneficiary of the pension scheme. If the Pension Board has the case that it is entitled to receive contribution from the 2nd respondent bank, it is for the Pension Board to take necessary action to recover the amount from the respondent bank. It is also equally important to note that even the Pension Fund Board is of the opinion that the entire pension could not be paid due to the disobedience of the 2nd respondent bank to pay the contribution. Even though learned counsel for 2nd respondent has submitted that Exhibit P1 Pay Revision Order has not come into force, in view of the terms and conditions of Exhibit P1 itself, we are unable to agree with the same, and for the reason that
W.P.(C).No.12470of 2017
9
even according to the statement filed by the Pension Fund Board, amounts are due from the bank from January, 1997 onwards.
In that view of the matter, the petitioner has not made out any case of illegality, arbitrariness or other legal infirmities justifying our interference with the order passed by the Upa Lokayukta. Needless to say, the writ petition fails, accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE
smv
W.P.(C).No.12470of 2017
10
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12470/2017
| PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: |
A TRUE COPY OF THE PAY REVISION ORDER DATED 23.5.2005 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2: | A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BOARD, TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT SOCIETY |
| EXHIBIT P3: | A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.915/2016 PREFERRED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA |
| EXHIBIT P4: | A TRUE COPY OF FACTUAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BOARD BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA IN THE COMPLAINT |
| EXHIBIT P5: | A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 19.9.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P6: | A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 25.08.2016 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SOCIETY BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA |
| EXHIBIT P7: | A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ADDITIONAL FACTUAL REPORT |
| EXHIBIT P8: | A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FILED BY THE SOCIETY DATED 5.1.2017 |
| EXHIBIT P9: | A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA |
| Exhibit P10 | TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S PENSION CONTRIBUTION. |
| Exhibit P11 | TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED CALCULATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S PENSION CONTRIBUTION. |
| RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS | |
| Exhibit R1(a) | TRUE COPY OF PENSION FUND CALCULATION STATEMENT RECKONED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT |
| Exhibit R1(b) | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR/SECRETARY OF THE KERALA STATE CO- OPERATIVE EMPLOYEE PENSION BOARD |
| Exhibit R1(c) | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2014 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT WITH TRANSLATION. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Upa Lokayukta directing the Pension Board to pay full pension and interest to the complainant.
Whether the delay in payment of pension attributable to the bank's failure to remit contributions constitutes maladministration justifying writ interference.
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES' PENSION BOARD
ELIZABETH B.E.BHAVAN
THE NEYYATTINKARA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.
KERALA LOK AYUKTA
S.MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P.CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
