Allowed

John T J v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Aug 2022WP(C)/4319/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired secretary of a co-operative society, sought release of withheld salary and pension. Court held society cannot withhold benefits on mere suspicion and directed payment within three months unless an interdictory order is issued.

What did the court decide?

The 4th respondent directed to disburse eligible salary and retiral benefits to the petitioner within three months, subject to any interdictory order from the competent forum.

John T J Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 4319 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

JOHN T J, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O T J JOSEPH,
THONAKKARA HOUSE, KALLUMMOOD, BALARAMAPURAM P O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695521.

¶7

BY ADVS.
G.RAJEEV
REJITH RAJENDRAN
AJITH KUMAR.S

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶10

2 DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, VIKAS BHAVAN P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶11

3 GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, WATER WORKS COMPOUND, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695003.

¶12

4 BALARMAPURAM WEAVER'S INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.H.IND (T) 258, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BNALARAMAPURAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695501.

¶13

5 THE SECRETARY, BALARMAPURAM WEAVER'S INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.H.IND (T) 258, BALARAMAPURAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695501.

¶14

BY ADVS.
B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
ANITHA RAVINDRAN
HARISANKAR N UNNI
SARANGADHARAN P.
N.S.SHAMILA
SMT.RESHMI THOMAS - GP

¶15

WPC 4319/22

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 4319/22

JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he retired, on attaining the age of

¶22

superannuation, from the services of the 4 th respondent –

¶23

Balaramapuram Weaver’s Industrial Co-operative Society, while working as its Secretary. He says that no allegations have ever been imputed against him while in service and that he was thus entitled to all his salary and pensionary benefits. He alleges that, however, this has been withheld by the 4 th respondent without any cogent reason; and thus prays that they be directed to release the arrears of salary, retiral benefits and other eligible emoluments due to him, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶24

2 . The afore submissions of Sri.Thonnakkal G. Rajeev –

¶25

learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar – learned Standing Counsel for the 4 th respondent, saying that, as is evident from Ext.R4(a) produced along with the counter affidavit of his client, an objection has

¶26

been raised by the Audit Department that he had drawn amounts

¶27

¶28

WPC 4319/22

¶29

illegally towards salary while he was working as a Secretary and therefore, that such amounts will have to be recovered from him. He added that an enquiry has also been recommended by the Society into the ‘wrong doings’ of the petitioner and therefore, that his claims can be acceded to only after the same is finally settled; thus praying that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶30

3 . I must say that I cannot find full favour with the

¶31

afore submissions of Sri.B.S.Swathikumar because Ext.R4(a) appears to indicate that the petitioner had drawn salary based on a scale fixed by him unilaterally, without the consent of the Society or that of the competent Statutory Authority. However, this is clearly belied by Ext.P3 proceedings of the Registrar of the Society, which has fixed a particular scale of salary in favour of the petitioner.

¶32

4 . That apart, Ext.P5 resolution of the Society would clearly indicate that they had resolved to grant the petitioner all benefits, both salary and retiral, and that his accounts were also settled by the Statutory Authority without any demur. Therefore,

¶33

WPC 4319/22

¶34

¶35

if any liability is now sought to be fixed against the petitioner, it will have to be done in the manner as prescribed under law; and since the petitioner has now admittedly retired from service, obviously, the Society will have to invoke their legal remedies against him for such purpose, including under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

¶36

5 . That said, the law in this regard has been well settled by this Court in several judgments prior, that consequent to the retirement of an employee, a Society cannot withhold his retiral benefits or his earlier salary benefits, merely on the ground that there is a suspicion of liability raised against him; and that any recovery can be made only after the alleged liability is established and quantified through Statutory means, including under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. As long as the Society has not even initiated any action against the petitioner in such regard and unless they are able to show that they have a valid interdictory order from the competent Forum, they cannot hold on either his salary or retiral benefits ad infinitum .

¶37

WPC 4319/22

¶38

¶39

6 . I must also answer an additional argument of

¶40

Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar, that the claims of the petitioner are now

¶41

hit by the rigour of limitation. I am afraid that this argument peremptorily fails because, going by Ext.P5 – which has been settled as recently as on 22.02.2021 – the Society had taken a decision to grant the petitioner all eligible amounts, including the retiral benefits.

¶42

In the afore circumstances, I order this Writ Petition with the following directions:

¶43

a ) The 4 th respondent – Society is directed to disburse eligible salary and retiral benefits to the petitioner, after affording him an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

b ) The 4 th respondent will be at full liberty to initiate legally sanctioned action against the petitioner for recovery of any amounts that may be found to be recovered from him, through the process under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act; subject to all other requisites; and if, through the

¶45

WPC 4319/22

¶46

¶47

afore process, any interdictory order is issued by the jurisdictional Forum, then my direction in (a) above will stand modulated accordingly. To paraphrase, unless there is an interdictory order from the competent Forum, directions in (a) above will be complied with.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

RR

¶50

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

WPC 4319/22

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4319/2022

¶55

`PETITIO` `Exhibit`	`NER EXHIB` `P1`	`ITS` `TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT` `DATED 21.04.1982 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT SOCIETY TO THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED` `31.07.1997 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT,` `APPROVING THE STAFF PATTERN AND THEIR` `SCALES OF PAY.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED` `15.05.2007 OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR IN` `THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT,` `APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE` `PETITIONER AS THE SECRETARY OF THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER CUM` `CLAIM APPLICATION DATED 15.02.2021` `TENDERED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE` `PRESIDENT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT` `SOCIETY.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED` `22.02.2021 OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF` `THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY PRINTOUT OF THE EMAIL DATED` `01.07.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY PRINTOUT OF THE EMAIL DATED` `14.08.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED` `25.10.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO` `THE PRESIDENT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT` `SOCIETY.`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED` `26.10.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED` `26.10.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`RESPOND`	`ENT EXHIB`	`ITS`
`Exhibit`	`R4(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.IV DATED` `22/07/2021 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`R4(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.DIVTVM/1510/2021-CS8 DATED` `06/05/2022 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`

John T J v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John T J v. 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

Ajikumar Vs Sheri G

Fathima Thazkiya O Vs National Medical Commission

Kerala Christian Professional College Management Federation Vs Union of India

Smt. Mrinalini Vs Shri. Sajeesh

Annie John, Vs Suresh Kumar

Thomas P John Vs Suresh Kumar