M.Divakaran Nair Vs the State of Kerala

2025:KER:20338

¶3

WP(C) No.10634 of 2010

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶7

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

WP(C) NO. 10634 OF 2010

¶9

PETITIONERS:

¶10

M.DIVAKARAN NAIR, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN KIDAVU,
MADATHIL HOUSE,, KOZHUKALLOOR P.O., VIA
MEPPAYUR, KOZHIKODE DIST.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF, CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2 THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRARSECRETARY KERALA STATE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOZHIKODE.

¶16

4 THE MEPPAYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.D2019, MEPPAYURE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶17

5 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS THE MEPPAYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,, NO.D 2019, MEPPAYURE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶18

BY ADVS.

¶19

SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY
SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶20

¶21

2025:KER:20338

¶22

WP(C) No.10634 of 2010

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

R1 AND 3 - SRI.BINOY DAVIS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R2 - SRI.M.SASINDRAN,SC R4 AND 5 -
SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

2025:KER:20338

¶28

WP(C) No.10634 of 2010

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Dated this the 5th day of March, 2025

¶31

The writ petition is preferred challenging Exts.P6, P7, P8, P11 and P14 orders. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the 2^nd respondent to commence the period of enrollment under the 2^nd respondent from 15.04.1974 and grant the retirement benefits accordingly.

¶32

It is the case of the petitioner that he retired from service of the 4^th respondent as a Secretary. While in service he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and dismissed. That resulted in a series of litigations and finally Ext.P4 judgment. Consequently, he was reinstated in service on the basis of resolution taken by the 5^th respondent as per resolution No.5 dated 31.3.2006 and an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent, wherein he was allowed to continue in service from the date of suspension, i.e., 23.12.1993 forenoon. From that date to 31.01.2003, he was treated as Assistant Secretary and from 01.02.2003 he was promoted and designated as Secretary till his retirement on 31.03.2004. His service from 15.04.1974 to 31.03.2004 was treated as continuous. From 23.12.1993 to 31.03.2004, his

¶33

¶34

2025:KER:20338

¶35

WP(C) No.10634 of 2010

¶36

arrears of salary, leave surrender benefit, bonus, medical allowance and gratuity disbursed at the time of retirement, which comes to Rs.6,75,000/- were disbursed. Necessary steps were taken to ensure the disbursement of his benefits by treating him as having retired as Secretary on 31.03.2004, with a rider, no further litigation in this regard.

¶37

In accordance with the directions in Ext.P4 judgment and as per the agreement entered into between the 5^th respondent and the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent has, after hearing the petitioner, fixed the pension from the date 01.07.1977, the date on which the Provident Fund Scheme commenced.

¶38

It is the case of the petitioner that he was sanctioned with provisional monthly minimum pension of Rs.4,140/- by Ext.P7. That amount of pension was sanctioned taking into consideration the total length of service as 307 months instead of 359.5 months and thereby his pension has been reduced considerably. Thereafter, on sanctioning regular pension, the final pension amount is fixed at Rs.5,529/- per month from 01.04.2004. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for an amount of Rs.6,960/- as monthly pension and

¶39

¶40

2025:KER:20338

¶41

WP(C) No.10634 of 2010

¶42

thereby occurred a loss of Rs.1,431/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent. On considering the said appeal, by Ext.P11, the 2^nd respondent rejected the contentions of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a representation before the Minister of the Department as per Ext.P12. In the meanwhile, the 5th respondent granted the benefit of higher grade to the petitioner with retrospective effect from 01.02.2003 and requested to the 2^nd respondent to enhance the pension in accordance with the new rate of salary paid to the petitioner. However, that was declined as per Ext.P14 on the ground that the higher grade was sanctioned with retrospective effect and only a nominal amount was paid as contribution. Hence, the payment of huge amount as arrears with retrospective effect would cause an unnecessary financial burden. Therefore, only applications which received within one year from the date of retirement alone will be considered.

¶43

Thereafter the Society has taken a decision to remit the contribution from 15.4.1977 and had taken sufficient steps to enable the 2^nd respondent to calculate and arrive at the pension amount legally eligible to the petitioner from the

¶44

¶45

2025:KER:20338

¶46

WP(C) No.10634 of 2010

¶47

date of entry in service. In support of the above contention, the petitioner produced certain additional documents to show that the Society has paid its contribution to the Kerala State Co-operative Employees’ Pension Board from 05.04.1974. The petitioner is reiterating the stand that he is entitled to the pensionary benefits calculating the benefits from 15.04.1974 and also to take into account the higher grade granted with retrospective effect after his retirement.

¶48

In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought my attention to the reported decision in Narayana Kuruppu v. Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board [2012 (2) KLT 207] wherein it is held that if an employee is not eligible for pension, it should be made clear before receiving contribution under the Scheme and not after a considerable period of time. The Pension Board cannot adjudicate whether the appointment was bad for any reason.

¶49

Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the petitioner had entered into the service of the 4th respondent Society on 15.04.1974. The Contributory Provident Fund in the name of the petitioner

¶50

¶51

2025:KER:20338

¶52

WP(C) No.10634 of 2010

¶53

started only with effect from 01.07.1977. As per clause 19 (1) (a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994, qualifying service is defined as follows;

¶54

“(1)(a) in the case of an employee who was in service of a Society or a Board constituted under the Act on the date of application of the Scheme to that Society or such Board the length of the service commencing from the date of joining the Contributory Provident Fund.”

¶55

Therefore, qualifying service of the petitioner can

¶56

be taken from 01.07.1977, the date on which the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was implemented. It is also contended that the higher grade granted after the retirement with retrospective effect cannot be taken into consideration for revising the pensionary benefits. Since the contribution paid towards the Self Financing Pension Scheme is a meager one, in accordance with the then available monetary value of the salary, the 2^nd respondent Pension Fund Board did not receive proportionate contribution in accordance with the revised salary taking into consideration the higher grade granted with

¶57

¶58

2025:KER:20338

¶59

WP(C) No.10634 of 2010

¶60

retrospective effect. If such revision is effected in pension, that will ultimately affect the resources of the Pension Fund Board and it may affect its future capability to grant pension to the retired employees. Hence, the prayer in the writ petition cannot be granted, the counsel argued.

¶61

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent in its statement mentioned various decisions to substantiate that, the qualifying service of an employee can only be reckoned from the date of joining the Contributory Provident Fund, which are Sukumaran N. v. Kerala State

¶62

Co-operative Employees’ Pension Board, Thiruvananthapuram [2010 (4) KHC 859], Pushpam C. v. State of Kerala and others [2015 (4) KLT 265] and also Purushothaman K. and another v. Kerala State Cooperative Employees’ Pension Board [2011 (3) KHC 325] wherein it was specifically held that Clause (1)(a) of para 19 stipulates that in the case of an employee who was in the service of a society on the date of application of the scheme to that society, the length of the service commencing from the date of joining the Contributory Provident Fund shall be the qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension. The first

¶63

¶64

2025:KER:20338

¶65

WP(C) No.10634 of 2010

¶66

proviso however stipulates that the qualifying service shall be limited to the period for which the employer’s contribution towards the Provident Fund has been fully paid by the society in respect of that employee.

¶67

This position has been upheld by the Division Bench in Purushothaman K . v. Kerala State Co-operatives Employees’ Employees’ Pension Board [2011 (4) KLT 455].

¶68

In response to that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2^nd respondent has accepted the contribution made by the Society as per Ext.P16 Resolution even prior to the date of implementation of the scheme in the Society. In response, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that they are ready to refund the excess amount paid to them by the Society as per Ext.P16.

¶69

I have heard Sri.N.K.Subramanian, the learned

¶70

counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent, Sri. K.P.Sudheer, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and also Sri. Binoy Davis, the learned Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent.

¶71

Having considered the submissions made across the Bar, it appears that the petitioner joined the service of the

¶72

¶73

2025:KER:20338

¶74

WP(C) No.10634 of 2010

¶75

4^th respondent Society with effect from 15.04.1974. The name of the petitioner was included in the Contributory Provident Fund with effect from 01.07.1977. In fact, during his tenure, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Initially he was suspended and later terminated. Litigation ended up in Ext.P4 judgment. In the light of Ext.P4 judgment, an agreement has been entered into between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent Society.

¶76

As per the terms of the agreement, petitioner's service has been regularised with effect from date of suspension 22.12.1993 and later he was permitted to continue as Assistant Secretary upto 31.01.2003. Thereafter on 01.02.2003 he was promoted as Secretary and allowed to retire from service on 31.03.2004. A decision was also taken to treat the entire period of service till the retirement as a continuous service. The entire benefits pertaining to the said period were decided to be granted to the petitioner. Further steps have been ensured to provide pension to the petitioner treating that he was retired on 31.03.2004 after a continuous service. It is also decided that in future no legal steps will be taken pursuant to the matter involved in the litigation.

¶77

¶78

2025:KER:20338

¶79

WP(C) No.10634 of 2010

¶80

Accordingly Ext.P5(a) agreement was signed between the 5^th respondent and the petitioner.

¶81

However, as per Ext.P6, the Pension Board has sanctioned pension to the petitioner calculating the pension from the date of joining the pension scheme, i.e., on 01.07.1977, and the Society was directed to remit the arrears of pension contribution with effect from 01.07.1977. When the Society effects the payment of arrears, it was decided to sanction the arrears to the petitioner. However, the Board has taken a decision that it cannot grant any concession in collecting the interest on the arrears paid to Society. As per the Pension Payment Order, which is produced as Ext.P7, it can be seen that the petitioner’s date of joining to the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme is only from 01.07.1977, though he entered into service with effect from 01.07.1974.

¶82

Under such circumstances, considering Clause 19(1)(a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees’ Self Financing Pension Scheme, the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits from the date on which he entered into the pension scheme, i.e., from 01.07.1977, the date on which the scheme was made applicable to the 4^th respondent Society.

¶83

¶84

2025:KER:20338

¶85

WP(C) No.10634 of 2010

¶86

However, the Society as per Ext.P16 decided to remit the contribution with retrospective effect from 15.04.1974 to the Contributory Provident Fund and the 2^nd respondent has also accepted the amount.

¶87

Taking into consideration, Clause 19(1)(a) of the Scheme, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to get pension from the date on which the payment is effected to the Board. However, I cannot defer with the plea raised by the petitioner that the contribution has been paid to the Society much prior to the implementation of the Scheme with retrospective effect. But that cannot be a reason for granting pension to the petitioner taking into account the fact that the amount was paid retrospectively. That too, prior to the date of commencement of the Scheme.

¶88

I have also considered the contentions of the petitioner that he is entitled to the revised pensionary benefits taking into account the grade given to him after his retirement with retrospective effect. I cannot concede to the contention of the petitioner since the contribution paid by the Society on behalf of the petitioner was meagre and grade was given one

¶89

¶90

2025:KER:20338

¶91

WP(C) No.10634 of 2010

¶92

year after the retirement; that too, with retrospective effect. Without getting any proportionate contribution, if the 2^nd respondent effects revision taking into consideration of the grade granted to the petitioner with retrospective effect, that will ultimately affect the resources of the 2^nd respondent, especially the process of effecting payment of other employees. Hence, that prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted based on the finding that the stand taken by the Board is correct.

¶93

Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit to interfere with the matter. However, the Pension Board is not entitled to retain the contribution made by the Society, which is in excess of the required amount since the amount is paid from 15.04.1974 prior to the date of implementation. The excess payment made shall be refunded to the Society with statutory interest. If the Society desires to disburse the same to the

¶94

petitioner, the Society is free to do the same.

¶95

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

sd/-

P.M.MANOJ JUDGE

das

WP(C) No.10634 of 2010

¶101

2025:KER:20338

¶102

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10634/2010

¶103

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶104

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DT.15.4.74`	`APPOINTMENT LETTER`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DT.28.7.97`	`ORDER NO.MSB/1/7/97/`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DT.3.11.03`	`GO(RT) NO.639/2003/CO-OP.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DT.4.4.06`	`JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.39379/03`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`RESOLUTION DT.31.3.06`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DT.15.1.07`	`ORDER NO.PB/P3/891/KKD`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF` `NO.417/KKD DT`	`PENSION PAYMENT ORDER` `.23.2.07`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DT.26.7.07`	`ORDER NO.PB.PPO.417/KKD`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`APPEAL DATED 14.2.08`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`LETTER DATED 3.4.08`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DT.13.6.08`	`ORDER NO.PB/P3/417/KKD`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`REPRESENTATION DT.22.7.08`
`EXHIBIT P13`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DT.10.7.09`	`ORDER NO.MSB/GR.1/09`
`EXHIBIT P14`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DT.13.10.09`	`ORDER NO.PB/P3/417/KKD`
`EXHIBIT P15`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`LETTER NO.2.11.09`
`EXHIBIT P16`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`RESOLUTION DT.15.5.06`
`EXHIBIT P17`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`LETTER DT.31.5.06`
`EXHIBIT P18`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`LETTER DT.31.5.06`
`EXHIBIT P19`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`LETTER 10.3.10`
`EXHIBIT P20`	`TRUE COPY OF` `9.6.2014`	`REPRESENTATION DATED`
`EXHIBIT P21`	`TRUE COPY OF` `17.6.2014`	`COMMUNICATION DATED`
`Exhibit P22`	`THE TRUE COPY` `31.05.2006.`	`OF PAY IN SLIP DATED`
`Exhibit P23`	`THE TRUE COPY` `17.11.2006.`	`OF PAY IN SLIP DATED`

¶105

WP(C) No.10634 of 2010

¶106

2025:KER:20338

¶107

¶108

Exhibit P24THE TRUE COPY OF PAY IN SLIP DATED
26.05.2007.
Exhibit P25THE TRUE COPY OF PAY IN SLIP DATED
28.06.2007.
Exhibit P26THE TRUE COPY OF PAY IN SLIP DATED
18.07.2007.
Exhibit P27CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF DETAILS OF
PAYMENT INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT
OF GRANTING THE HIGHER GRADE ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶109

Exhibit P28THE CALCULATION OF MY PENSION FUND
CALCULATED FROM 01.08.1974, WHICH IS THE
DATED OF MY JOINING DUTY TILL MY
RETIREMENT.

¶110

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶111

Exhibit R2(a)True copy of the judgment dated
06.02.2014 in WP(C) No.2805/2010

M.Divakaran Nair v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Divakaran Nair v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fedex Express Services (India)Pvt.Ltd Vs Smt.Shiny.P.a.

Shiny P.A. Vs Labour Court

M.v.Raju Vs M/S.Railway Employees Consumer Co-Operative Society Ltd. NO.E4

Vidya E a Vs Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram

Sathya Thampuran Vs State of Kerala

Valsamma Rajappan Vs State of Kerala