Allowed

Roy Thomas, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Apr 2024WP(C)/24367/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition challenging an order that denied three time-bound higher grade promotions to employees of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank. The Court quashed the order, directing that the Pay Revision Committee's recommendations for three graded promotions at 8, 15, and 22 years of service be followed, rejecting the respondent's reliance on pay scale comparisons.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P14 order quashed; employees entitled to three time bound higher grade promotions at 8, 15, and 22 years as recommended in Ext.P1.

Roy Thomas, Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 24367 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ROY THOMAS, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, CIVIL OVERSEER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (KERALA BANK), HEAD OFFICE, CO-BANK TOWERS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (PARACKAL T.C. 66/2052 (1), KOLIYOOR, MUTTAKKADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)

¶8

2 MOHANAN P.N., AGED 60 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN P.K., RETIRED ELECTRICIAN, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (KERALA BANK), HEAD OFFICE, CO-BANK TOWERS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (PALLATHU MARIYIL, TC NO. SPVIII/178(2), AVUKULAM, CHEMPAZHANTHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).

¶9

3 THOMAS ANTONY M., AGED 55 YEARS

¶10

S/O. ANTONY, ELECTRICIAN, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (KERALA BANK), HEAD OFFICE, CO-BANK TOWERS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (MANJALY VL-61A, VIKAS LANE, VANCHIYOOR (P.O.), KUNNUKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)

¶11

4 BINULAL T., AGED 60 YEARS

¶12

S/O. THANKAPPAN K., RETIRED ELECTRICIAN, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (KERALA BANK), HEAD OFFICE, CO-BANK TOWERS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (KARTHIKA, TC 11/1212-1, KEERTHI LANE, NCRA-7, NANTHENCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).

¶13

WP(C) NO. 24367 OF 2021 -2-

¶14

5 ARUNDAS K.K., AGED 54 YEARS S/O. KUMARAN, PLUMBER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (KERALA BANK), HEAD OFFICE, CO-BANK TOWERS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (POURNAMI, MLA ROAD KOVOOR, NEAR KARINKALLIKKAL BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, CHEVAYUR P.O., KOZHIKODE).

¶15

BY ADVS. K.SASIKUMAR S.ARAVIND P.S.RAGHUKUMAR

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COOPERATION (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶18

2 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., PIN-695014.

¶19

3 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., (KERALA BANK), REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, CO-BANK TOWERS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶20

BY ADVS.

¶21

GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA, SC, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK

¶22

SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR. GOVT. PLEADER

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 08.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶25

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.24367 of 2021

¶26

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8^th day of April, 2024

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Ext.P14 order of the first respondent declining to

¶29

grant three time bound higher grade promotions as recommended by the pay revision committee, is under

¶30

challenge in this writ petition.

¶31

Petitioners are the employees/former employees of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. which is presently the Kerala Bank. As per Ext.P1, the pay revision committee recommended grant of three time bound higher grade promotions-one at eight years of service, second at fifteen years of service and the third at 22 years of service for the employees of the Bank other than sub-staff.

¶32

As per Ext.P2, the Government, without accepting the recommendations in Ext.P1 as such, ordered grant of

¶33

two time bound higher grades one at eight years of

¶34

W.P.(C) No.24367 of 2021

¶35

-: 2 :-

¶36

service and the second at 16 years of service.

¶37

Ext.P3 is the pay revision order in respect of

¶38

the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Therein the Government granted three time bound higher grades at eight years, 15 years and 22 years.

¶39

Pointing out the differential approach and the stagnation in the posts on account of non-promotional avenues, the employees of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. submitted Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent. The request in Ext.P4 was rejected as per Ext.P5. The same was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.39387/2016. This Court as per Ext.P6 judgment quashed Ext.P5 and directed the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners for parity with the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

¶40

W.P.(C) No.24367 of 2021

¶41

-: 3 :-

¶42

Thereafter the Government passed Ext.P7 order

¶43

declining the claim stating that, the pay scales in both the Banks are different. The pay scale in the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank being lower, the grant of one additional grade was sought to be justified.

¶44

Ext.P7 Government Order was quashed by this

¶45

Court in Ext.P8 judgment in W.P.(C) No.21483/2017. This Court directed fresh orders to be passed. Thereafter Ext.P9 Government Order was passed against declining the

¶46

request, again referring to pay scale. Pending a contempt proceeding, the first respondent withdrew Ext.P12 and issued Ext.P14 order. In Ext.P14 also the first respondent justified refusal to grant the third time bound higher grade on comparing the ratio between the lower and higher salary in the Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Challenging the same, the writ petition has been filed.

¶47

W.P.(C) No.24367 of 2021

¶48

-: 4 :-

¶49

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶50

and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶51

Though as per Ext.P1 the pay revision committee recommended grant of three time bound higher grades to the employees of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017, the Government curtailed the same to two. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in respect of the Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, the recommendation for three time bound higher grades was accepted, while the same was declined to the petitioners.

¶52

As noticed earlier, the reasoning of the first respondent in Exts.P9, P12 and P14 orders for declining the petitioners’ request is that, the pay scale of the employees of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank is much higher when compared to that of the Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. This

¶53

W.P.(C) No.24367 of 2021

¶54

-: 5 :-

¶55

justifies restricting the number of higher grades to the employees of the State Co-operative Bank, is the contention.

¶56

The approach of the 1^st respondent appears to be, to compare the pay scale in the two institutions and place them at par. Here it is appropriate to refer to the observations made by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment

¶57

in W.P.(C) No.21483/2017 wherein this Court has specifically held that, pay scale is not to be the criteria for grant of time bound higher grade promotions. The relevant portions read thus:-

¶58

“6. As is ineluctable from the afore extracted reasons stated, the petitioners have been denied a three layered Time Bound Grade Promotion because they are allegedly drawing a higher salary than the employees of the KSCARDs. This view has been taken by the Government presumably because the directions in Ext.P10 judgment were interpreted to be that the Time Bound Grade Promotion must also be assessed with respect to the salaries drawn by the two categories of the employees of the Bank and the KSCARDs.

¶59

W.P.(C) No.24367 of 2021

¶60

-: 6 :-

¶61

7. However, when one analyses the purpose of a Time Bound Grade Promotion, it cannot be lost sight of that this incentive is offered not merely for a monetary escalation but so as to get over the consequences of stagnation in a particular post. This is without doubt that if a person is promoted, then he is not entitled to the Time Bound Scale, because this applies only when such promotions are either delayed or denied.

¶62

8. Viewed from that perspective, what is relevant is not the pay scale but the chances of an employee stagnating in a particular post for a long duration of time, even though he may be drawing a higher scale of pay. If the scales of pay are the only criteria, then perhaps Time Bound Grade promotions are completely irrelevant and all that will be required is to give necessary increments of salary alone so as to offer the necessary financial gain. However, by implementing a Time Bound Scale, the real purpose is not merely to give a financial benefit but also to ensure that the detriment of stagnation in a particular post is offset to a large extent by such promotion. That is why it is called a promotion and not merely a financial addition.

¶63

9. I have made the afore observations because going by the impugned order, the Government does not appear to have considered these issues in the manner it should have and has merely taken this as a fiscal benefit to the employees rather

¶64

W.P.(C) No.24367 of 2021

¶65

-: 7 :-

¶66

than as a promotion. I say so because the Government has missed the most germane aspect that even though there is no actual promotion, what is expected through the mechanism of Time Bound Scales is to offer a 'promotion' notionally on account of the factum of stagnation of an employee in a particular post being inevitable.

¶67

This Court has categorically held that pay scale is not

¶68

to be the criteria for fixation of time bound grade promotions. It is in spite of the above that Ext.P14 order has been passed banking upon the difference in the pay scales of the two institutions.

¶69

With regard to fixing of scale of pay,

¶70

paragraph 8 of Ext.P14 order is extracted hereunder as being relevant:-

¶71

“(8) Scale of pay is being sanctioned after considering the duty attached to the particular post, qualification required to take up the task associated with the post, nature of decision making and financial strength of the institution. The scale of pay sanctioned to the employee of KSCARD Bank and Kerala State Co-operative Bank are different. Higher pay and better facilities are being sanctioned to the employees working in Kerala State Co-operative Bank.”

¶72

W.P.(C) No.24367 of 2021

¶73

-: 8 :-

¶74

Even in Ext.P14 order it has been stated that, fixation of scale of pay is considering the duty attached to the post, qualification required, nature of decision making, and financial strength of the institution. As held by this Court in W.P.(C) No.21483/2017 (supra) , the concept of time bound higher grade is an attempt to tide over the consequences of stagnation in a particular post. In spite of repeated indications by this Court in various proceedings noted earlier, in Ext.P14 order the authority has again declined the prayer of the petitioner referring to the higher pay scale than that of Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Ext.P14 Government Order cannot thus, be sustained.

¶75

In spite of the repeated directions of this

¶76

Court to consider the claim of the petitioners for grant of three higher grade promotions as was granted to Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural

¶77

W.P.(C) No.24367 of 2021

¶78

-: 9 :-

¶79

Development Bank, dehors the reason of pay scale, the Government has not stated any other grounds to decline the claim. Therefore, it has to be taken that no other grounds exist to decline the claim. No grounds are urged before this Court to decline the claim of the petitioners. In the writ petition, at paragraph 16, the petitioners have demonstrated the stagnation that has occurred after the second grade promotion granted at 16 years of service thus:

¶80

W.P.(C) No.24367 of 2021

¶81

-: 10 :-

¶82

It can be seen that they are under stagnation since the

¶83

2^nd grade promotion in the year 2017 and they have further years left in their service.

¶84

The petitioners were required to approach this

¶85

Court on various occasions earlier, for the very same relief. Apart from the reason of “pay scale”, which was refused to be accepted by this Court earlier, no other grounds have been placed before this Court to disentitle the petitioners of their claim. Hence this Court is inclined to uphold the entitlement of the petitioners to the time bound higher grade as recommended by the Pay Revision Committee in Ext.P1.

¶86

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P14 order of the first respondent is quashed. It is declared that the employees of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank other than the sub-staff are entitled to three time

¶87

W.P.(C) No.24367 of 2021

¶88

-: 11 :-

¶89

bound higher grade promotions at 8 years, 15 years and

¶90

22 years of their service respectively, as recommended

¶91

in Ext.P1.

¶92

Sd/-

¶93

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24367/2021

¶98

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶99

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING ATED 21/02/2014 OF THE PAY REVISION COMMITTEE FOR THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES WITH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF GO(MS) NO.61/2015/CO-OP., DATED 04/05/2015 WITH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.86/2015/CO-OP DATED 14/07/2015 WITH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/07/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE
	STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE EXT.P4 REPRESENTATION WITH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/12/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 39387/2016.
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.212/2017/CO-OP. DATED 18/04/2017.
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/07/2019 IN WPC NO. 21483/2017.
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.150/2020/CO-OP DATED 04/03/2020.
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12/08/2020 IN CCC NO.854/2020.
Exhibit P11	/A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.651/2020/CO-OP, DATED 11/08/2020.
Exhibit P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO. 402/2020/CO-OP. DATED 07/09/2020.

¶100

APPENDIX- WP(C) 24367/2021

¶101

-2-

¶102

Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/03/2021 IN CONTEMPT COURT (C) NO. 1807/2020. Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.309/2021/CO-OP. DATED 12/05/2021. Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/08/2021 FORWARDED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS.

Roy Thomas, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roy Thomas, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimisha.P.K Vs Meat Productions of India Ltd.(Mpi)

Saramu.K.Paul, Vs State of Kerala

Smt. Meera T.K. Vs Kerala Water Authority

Valsamma Pn Vs Central Board of Secondary Education Shikshak KENDRA-2

E.P.Sanil Vs State of Kerala

The Secretary Vs State of Kerala