IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33651 of 2004(F)
1. V.V.MADHAVA MENON, S/O. GOPALA MENON,
... Petitioner
2. S.SANKARANARAYANAN, S/O.KUMARAN NAIR,
3. K.GOVINDAN NAIR, S/O. KESAVAN NAIR,
4. O.KUTTYKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.KANNAN NAIR,
5. A.ACHUTHAN, S/O. NARAYANA MENON,
6. M.SARADA, W/O. GOVINDA PANICKER,
7. V.GOPI, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
Vs
1. THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :12/10/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-----------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 33651 OF 2004
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Eligibility to get interest for the inordinate delay in disbursing the
benefits under Ext.P1 is the issue involved herein.
2. The sequence of events shows that, the petitioners were
working in various capacities in the respondent District Co-operative Bank
and all of them retired prior to 10.06.1997. The Government had framed
Ext.P1 Welfare Fund Scheme for payment for various benefits to the
employees of the District Co-operative Banks including the managerial
personnel. Since the benefits payable were not disbursed to the
petitioners, they approached this Court by filing OP 10572/1998, which
culminated in Ext.P4 judgment directing the respondent Bank to finalise the
matter within a period of two months. It appears that the respondent Bank
was not at all happy with the above verdict, which made them to approach
the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 775/1999 leading to
Ext.P5 judgment, directing the Bank to pay the due amount to the
concerned persons within three months. Feeling still aggrieved, the
respondent Bank approached the Apex Court by filing SLPs and after
WPC NO.33651/2004 2
hearing both the sides, the civil appeals were disposed of as per Ext.P6
verdict dated 28.07.2004, making it clear that the due amount shall be paid
within three months; simultaneously observing that the points of law
decided by the High Court were left open.
3. Despite finalisation of the proceedings as above, the direction
aforesaid was not complied with, which led to initiation of proceedings
under the Contempt of Court Act. Finally, as pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the principal amount due to the petitioners were
disbursed on 04.11.2004; however declining to pay interest at the rate of
12% per annum which was actually ordered in other similar cases like OP
10572/1998. The petitioners are before this Court, seeking to issue
appropriate directions to the respondent Bank for releasing interest in
respect of the delay involved in disbursing the due amount.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank
submits, with specific reference to the contents of the counter affidavit filed
from their side that, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners are quite wrong
and unfounded; particularly since Ext.P1 Scheme does not contemplate
payment of any interest and that the Bank found it very difficult even to
satisfy the principal amount. The incapacity to pay because of the adverse/
frustrating pecuniary circumstances is highlighted in the counter affidavit.
WPC NO.33651/2004 3
However, the learned counsel fairly concedes that in similar cases, this
Court had already issued directions to pay interest at the rate of 12%. A
copy of the judgment dated 28.03.2007 in WP(C) 30082/2004 was made
available for perusal, from both the sides. Learned Counsel for the
petitioners also placed reliance on similar verdicts in WP(C) 402/2005,
33511/2004 and such other cases.
5. The only point now projected before this Court is that, the case
of the petitioners stands on a different pedestal, in so far as they were
working in managerial posts; whereas the petitioners in 30082/2004 were
employees not working in any managerial capacity. But this distinction
does not appear to be palatable to this Court, for denying payment of
interest, particularly since both the streams of persons are eligible to get
the benefits of Ext.P1 Scheme. As it stands so, there is no reasonable
classification to drive out the petitioners from the arena and as such, it is
declared that the action on the part of the respondent Bank in denying
interest to the petitioners in respect of the belated payments is not correct
or sustainable.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2
are directed to pay interest on the due amounts paid belatedly to the
petitioners, in the same manner as dealt with in similar verdicts passed in
WPC NO.33651/2004 4
WP(C) 30082/2004 and connected cases, i.e., by paying interest at the
rate of 12% from the date of retirement, till the date of payment, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No cost.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc