Disposed

P.J.Mathew v. Registrar of Co-Operative Societies of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jul 2024WP(C)/4659/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court closed a writ petition seeking relief for back wages, interest, and quashing of an order satisfied by a prior Lok Adalat settlement, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to seek promotion. No operative court findings were recorded in the judgment text.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; right to claim promotion left open. No new relief granted.

P.J.Mathew Vs Registrar of Co-Operative… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4659 OF 2015

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.J.MATHEW
AGED 69 YEARS
R/A.PLASSANAL HOUSE,
NEELOOR P O, KOTTAYAM DIST-686651
(ACCOUNTANT (RETIRED)NEELOOR
SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

¶8

BY ADVS.
SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM
SMT.MERRY GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OF KERALA OFFICER OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶11

2 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GENERAL KOTTAYAM, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM-686002

¶12

3 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), MEENACHIL, PALA, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MEENACHIL, PALA, KOTTAYAM-686575

¶13

4 NEELOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.K.51, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, NEELOOR P O, KOTTAYAM DIST, 686651

¶14

5 STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,695001

¶15

6 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, REP BY SECRTARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶16

BY ADVS.
M.SASINDRAN FOR R6
SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW FOR R4.
SR.GP,SRI.E.G.GORDEN, R1 TO R3 AND R5.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P. (C) No.4659 of 2015

¶19

¶20

¶21

W.P.(C) No.4659 OF 2015

¶22

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2024

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner was working as an accountant in the 4^th respondent-Bank. While he is serving as an accountant in the bank, he was dismissed from service with effect from 22.01.2001. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent and vide order dated 14.02.2003, the 2^nd respondent has allowed the application by setting aside the order of dismissal, but it was challenged before the Government. By Ext.P3 order, the Government upheld the decision of the 2^nd respondent which is as follows:

¶25

“The punishment imposed on the 1^st respondent based on the findings of the enquiry officer who has not personally heard the delinquent officer is illegal. The decision taken by the sub committee without hearing the delinquent officer is against natural justice. The decision of the appeal committee

¶26

W.P. (C) No.4659 of 2015

¶27

¶28

upholding the decision of the sub committee is also illegal. Since the Joint Registrar has rescinded the resolutions of the sub committee and appeal committee on the ground that they were not lawful decisions there is no merit in the appeal petition. Therefore the same is dismissed upholding the order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Since the 1^st respondent is due to retire on 31.08.2003 the Bank is directed to reinstate him in service immediately.”

¶29

Being aggrieved by that, the 4^th respondent approached this Court by preferring W.P.(C) No.36593 of 2003, however, that was dismissed vide judgment dated 04.06.2004. The challenge against the said Ext.P4 judgment ended up in dismissal as per Ext.P5, wherein it is confirmed that the petitioner’s entitlement for back wages is only to three months. W.P.(C) No.36593 of 2003 was filed challenging the reinstatement of the petitioner. However, that was also dismissed, holding that the petitioner herein will be entitled to back wages, as if he continued in service uninterruptedly till the date of

¶30

W.P. (C) No.4659 of 2015

¶31

¶32

superannuation. The challenge against the said direction was also unsuccessful, as evidenced in Ext.P8, whereby it was held that the total amount that the Bank has to pay to the employee would be only all such amounts less the entire subsistence allowance, which has already been paid and further directed, all amounts remaining unpaid on such reconciliation shall be paid by the Bank to the employee within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment (Ext.P8). In compliance with that, vide order dated 24.03.2011, the Bank had paid the entire amount which comes to Rs.28,326/-, as evidenced in Ext.P9.

¶33

The petitioner again approached the Government for considering the period of suspension as ‘in service’. By considering the representation which is produced as Ext.P10, the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P12 order, whereby it was directed, if the amount which was recovered by the Bank, was the amount paid as a compensation instead of subsistence allowance that has to be repaid. With regard to availing of medical allowances, bonus and Staff Security

¶34

W.P. (C) No.4659 of 2015

¶35

¶36

Employees Welfare Fund, it was directed to entrust the pension board in compliance of the directions in judgment dated 04.02.2012 in W.P.(C) No.31970 of 2008.

¶37

Being aggrieved by that this writ petition is preferred inter alia seeking the following reliefs “(i) to (v)”.

¶38

(i) Call for the records relating to the issuance of Exhibit P-12 by the 1^st respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

¶39

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the 4^th respondent to calculate 10% interest for the delayed payment of service benefits to the petitioner from 31.08.2003 and disburse the same to the petitioner.

¶40

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the 4^th respondent to disburse the entire remaining service benefits to the petitioner with 10% interest from 31.08.2003.

¶41

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the 4^th respondent to repay the deducted amount in the name of back wages as per Exhibit P-9 with 10% interest to the petitioner.

¶42

W.P. (C) No.4659 of 2015

¶43

¶44

(v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to file a report before this Hon’ble Court regarding the total number of accountants existed in the office of the 4^th respondent bank during the period from 22.01.2001 to 31.08.2003 and the name of the persons appointed to the post of accountants during that period.

¶45

Respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 have preferred their

¶46

counter affidavits and the 4^th respondent also preferred additional counter affidavit, whereby contented that already the matter was settled in Lok Adalat as per Ext.R4(c) in which it was directed to pay the total amount of Rs.64,104/- towards the benefits due to the petitioner. However, that was without prejudice to its contention in this writ petition and the amount shall be paid to the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of the order.

¶47

I have heard Sri.Manuel Kachiramattam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5, Sri.Georgekutty Mathew, the learned counsel for

¶48

W.P. (C) No.4659 of 2015

¶49

¶50

the 4^th respondent and Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the 6^th respondent.

¶51

When the matter is taken up for consideration today, it is submitted that the monetary claim of the petitioner is satisfied by Ext.R4(c) order in PLP No.202 of 2017 and it is also submitted that the petitioner received

¶52

the entire payment as per the settlement in Lok Adalat. However, it is further submitted that this writ petition can be closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for promotion to the higher post while he was in service.

¶53

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed leaving open the right of the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for promotion to the higher post while he was in service.

¶54

Sd/P.M. MANOJ JUDGE

¶55

SSS

¶56

W.P. (C) No.4659 of 2015

¶57

¶58

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4659/2015

¶59

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶60

`EXHIBIT R4(A)`	`TRUE`	`COPY`	`OF`	`THE PE`	`TITIO`	`N BEARI`	`NG NO.`
	`PLP`	`202/`	`2017`	`SU`	`BMITT`	`ED` `BY`	`THE`
	`PETIT` `14:02`	`IONER` `.2017`	`B`	`EFORE`	`LOK`	`ADAFA`	`TH ON`
`EXHIBIT R4(B)`	`TRUE`	`COPY`	`O`	`F THE`	`ST`	`ATEMENT`	`DATED`
	`21.03`	`.2017`	`FI`	`LED BY`	`THE`	`SECRET`	`ARY OF`
	`THE` `BEFOR`	`4TH RE` `E THE`	`SPO` `LOK`	`NDENT` `ADALAT`	`BANK` `H`	`AT THA`	`T TIME`
`EXHIBIT R4(C)`	`TRUE`	`COPY`	`OF`	`THE`	`PROC`	`EEDINGS`	`DATED`
	`08.06`	`.2017`	`LN`	`PLP N`	`O. 20`	`2/2017`	`OF THE`
	`LOK` `LEGAL`	`ADALAT` `SERVI`	`H` `CES`	`ORGANI` `COMMIT`	`ZED` `TEE,`	`BY THE` `MEENACH`	`TALUK` `IL`

¶61

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶62

EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING
NO C RP(1)5474/02 DTD 14/2/2003 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD
28/3/2003 IN OP NO 8481/2003 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P3THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING
NO GO(RT)493/2003/CO-OP DTD 29/8/2003
OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD
4/6/2004 IN WPC NO 36593/2003 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P5THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD
20/7/2004 IN WA NO 1279/2004 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P6THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DTD
8/3/2006 IN RP NO 800/2004 IN WPC NO
36593/2003 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P7THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD
8/3/2006 IN WPC NO 36593/2003 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P8THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD
15/2/2010 IN WPC NO 30543/2004 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT

¶63

W.P. (C) No.4659 of 2015

¶64

¶65

EXHIBIT P9THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
BEING REF NO 2027 DTD 24/3/2011 OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10THETRUEPHOTOCOPYOFTHE
REPRESENTATION DTD 5/6/2013 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMITTEE
DECISION DTD 20/2/2014 BEING NO 404 OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P12THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING
NO E M (5)5235/14 DTD 30/9/2014 OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT

P.J.Mathew v. Registrar of Co-Operative Societies of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.J.Mathew v. Registrar of Co-Operative Societies of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Hic Abf Special Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Hic-Abf Special Foods Pvt.Ltd Vs State of Kerala

Savithri Amma Vs the Corporation of Kozhikode

P.T.Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala

Lalu T.C Vs Avanur Grama Panchayat