Allowed

P.Gopalakrishnan v. the Joint Registrar of Coop.

Madras HC19 Jul 2024WP/12110/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that denying revised pay scales and arrears to a petitioner whose service was regularized with retrospective effect was arbitrary. The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to fix revised pay scales and disburse arrears as per the relevant Government Order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to fix revised pay scales and disburse arrears of salary with interest, Provident Fund, Earned Leave, and Gratuity from 12.03.2001 to 22.08.2009.

P.Gopalakrishnan Vs the Joint Registrar of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.12110 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.12110 of 2014 and

M.P.No.1 of 2014

P.Gopalakrishnan

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Villupuram Region, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

¶12

2.The President,

¶13

F.V.95, Tindivanam Educational District Teaching and Non-Teaching Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society,

¶14

Kidangal – 1, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶15

3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tindivanam Circle, Tindivanam, ...

¶16

Villupuram District. Respondents

¶17

(R3 impleaded as per order dated 04.01.2024 in

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Page 1 of 11

¶20

W.P.No.12110 of 2014

¶21

W.M.P.No.7649 of 2019 in W.P.No.12110 of 2014)

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.2279/2012 Sa.Pa. dated 13.9.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to fix revised pay scales to the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.89, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 16.5.2000, and disburse the arrears of salary together with interest viz. Provident Fund, Earned Leave and Gratuity from 12.03.2001 to 22.08.2009.

¶23

For petitioners : Mr.C.Prakasam For respondents : Mr.S.Ravikumar, Special Government Pleader, *****

¶24

O RDER

¶25

The above writ petition has been filed for a certiorarified

¶26

mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 13.09.2013 and consequently, direct the respondents to fix the

¶27

Page 2 of 11

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.12110 of 2014

¶30

revised pay scales to the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.89, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 16.05.2000, and to disburse the arrears of salary together with interest viz., Provident Fund, Earned Leave and Gratuity Fund from 12.03.2001 to 22.08.2009.

¶31

The petitioner would submit that he was appointed as Clerk on daily wage basis on 08.05.1998 in the second respondent society. Thereafter, his service was regularized by the first respondent as Clerk, by an order dated 09.02.2007, by giving retrospective effect from 12.03.2001. Thereafter, on 22.08.2009, the petitioner had resigned from the second respondent society and joined duty in the Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank as Assistant.

¶32

The petitioner would submit that since his service in the second respondent society had been regularized with effect from

¶33

Page 3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.12110 of 2014

¶35

12.03.2001, he is entitled to get the salary as per G.O.Ms.No.89, supra, with effect from 12.03.2001. However, the second respondent refused to fix the revised pay scale from the date of regularization and had revised the pay scale only from 01.06.2007. The petitioner had made several representations. However, since there was no response, he has come forward with this writ petition.

¶36

The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit as well as an additional counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the first respondent would submit that the petitioner had left the second respondent society after two years from the date of regularization viz., on 22.08.2009. Thereafter, as per the circular dated 30.08.2007, made by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the petitioner's pay was fixed and all the benefits and other monetary benefits were disbursed to the petitioner. After the receipt of the amount, the petitioner had made a representation claiming arrears of pay which was not sustainable under law.

¶37

Page 4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.12110 of 2014

¶39

The first respondent would further submit that the Government Order would be only applicable to the persons those who had been appointed in regular basis through the employment exchange and not to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner was turned down on the ground that there was no cadre strength for the appointment of the petitioner in the year 2000 till 2007. Therefore, after he was regularized in the year 2007, his pay scale was fixed and other benefits were also calculated from the year 2007.

¶40

In the additional affidavit, the first respondent would further elaborate on the order regularizing the petitioner's service. The first respondent would submit that the regularization was done subject to fulfillment of certain conditions which were set out in the Government Order mentioned in the order dated 24.10.2002 of this Court made in the case of W.A.No.2501 and 2502 of 2001. The first respondent would further state that the conditions for

¶41

Page 5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.No.12110 of 2014

¶43

regularization of irregular appointments made between the period

¶44

08.07.1980 to 11.03.2001 are as follows:

¶45

“ (a)The employee should be recruited by the

¶46

society in confirmity with the rules;

¶47

(b)The employee should be in 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months;

¶48

(c)The employee should satisfy the eligibility conditions set out in the societies by laws;

¶49

(d)The seniority would be based on the outcome of the pending writ petitions in the High Court.”

¶50

The proceedings under which, the petitioner was regularized by the first respondent would read as follows:

¶51

“In accordance with the Government Order

¶52

and the instructions of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies cited above, the services of Thiru.P.Gopalakrishnan is regularized on fulfillment of certain conditions of service stated

¶53

Page 6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P.No.12110 of 2014

¶55

therein, in Tindivanam Educational District Teachers and Staffs Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society from 12.03.2001 in the post of Clerk in which he was initially appointed subject to the outcome of the writs pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Madras.”

¶56

When a specific question was asked as to whether these conditions had been elaborated in the regularization order and whether the details of the writ petitions had been provided therein, the learned Special Government Pleader fairly conceded that the letter does not contain any such details. However, he would submit that the Government Order referred to in this letter has to be read into along with the regularization order. Since the petitioner was not qualified, he is not entitled to claim basic pay scale to be refixed with effect from 12.03.2001. The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent is in the same line with the counter affidavit of the first respondent.

¶57

Page 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.P.No.12110 of 2014

¶59

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶60

A perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.89, supra, clearly indicates that it was issued by the Government to streamline the pay scale and service conditions of the employees of the Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society in this state. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tindivanam Circle, Tindivanam, by his proceedings dated 07.06.2007, has passed an order that the petitioner is permitted to get his salary fixed as per Section 12(3) or Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It would further state that the petitioner is entitled to have his pay fixed in keeping with G.O.Ms.No.89, supra, with effect from 12.03.2001. This order also takes into account the fact that the petitioner has not been appointed through the employment exchange. This order also set out certain conditions and the conditions mentioned in point nos. 8 and 9 would read as follows:

¶61

“8/ ,t;bthg;ge;j;jjpw;F Kd; bgw;W te;j Cjpak;

¶62

Page 8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

W.P.No.12110 of 2014

¶64

kw;Wk; g[jpa Cjpa xg;ge;jk; MfpaitfSf;fpilna cs;s tpj;jpahrj; bjhifapid cghpj; bjhifahf fUjp 12/03/2001f;F Kd;dh; fzf;fpl;L tH';ff; TlhJ/ 9/ ////// 12/03/2001 Kjy; g[jpa Cjpa tpfpjj;jpy; fzf;fpl;L epYitj; bjhif 5 rk jtidfspy; xU Tl;Ltt[ Mz;ow;F xU jtid tPjk; $e;J Tl;LWt[ Mz;Lfspy; 2007?2008k; Mz;L Kjy; tH';fg;gl ntz;Lk;/ ,e;j #uj;J Cjpa xg;ge;jj;jpy; nrh;f;fg;glntz;Lk;/”

¶65

Therefore in the light of the above and the fact that the

¶66

first respondent had deemed it fit to regularize the petitioner with effect from 12.03.2001, the denial of the salary with effect from 12.03.2001 is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. Thus, this writ petition is allowed as prayed for. Consequently, connected M.P. stands closed. No costs.

¶67

19.07.2024

¶68

Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order ssa

¶69

Page 9 of 11

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

W.P.No.12110 of 2014

¶72

¶73

1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Villupuram Region, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

¶74

2.The President,

¶75

F.V.95, Tindivanam Educational District Teaching and Non-Teaching Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society, Kidangal – 1, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶76

3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tindivanam Circle, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

¶77

Page 10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12110 of 2014

P.T.ASHA, J.,

ssa

W.P.No.12110 of 2014

¶82

19.07.2024

¶83

Page 11 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.Gopalakrishnan v. the Joint Registrar of Coop.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Gopalakrishnan v. the Joint Registrar of Coop.

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

Mr.K.Shanmugarajan, Vs The Managing Director

A.Rasheeda Begum Vs The Director of Elementary

H.K.Mahapatra Vs The Union of India

Mr.K.P.Nagarajan Vs State of Tamilnadu

A.Jagannathan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Anthonysamy, Vs The Chief Engineer/ Personnel