IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9609 of 2010(A)
1. SECRETARY,IVERKALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM.
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,KERALA
3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
4. VILLAGE OFFICER,KUNNATHOOR,KUNNATHOOR.PO
5. MRS.SHYNI.K.R,W/O.P.PRASAD,KUTTIYIL
For Petitioner :SRI.SOORANAD S.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :13/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO.9609 OF 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging the coercive steps against the
petitioner-Society, whereby the subsistence allowance ordered
to be paid to the 5th respondent is sought to be realised. A
review petition is stated as preferred by the petitioner before the
2nd respondent. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits
that the 5th respondent is not entitled to get any benefit as her
posting itself was wrong and illegal and that she was given
appointment by none other than her husband who was the
President and Secretary in Charge of the Society at the relevant
point of time. It is also stated that since the appointment is
wrong and illegal, the same was put an end to, which made the
5th respondent to file a petition seeking for subsistence
allowance, which was allowed without giving an opportunity to
the petitioner to contest the matter on merits. This necessitated
to file a review petition through the lawyer of the petitioner on
7.2.2010 and the learned counsel submits that said proceeding
is still pending which is sought to be finalized without any further
W.P.(C). NO.9609 OF 2010 2
delay by filing Ext.P1 representation on 17.3.2010,
simultaneously requesting the authority concerned to keep
all recovery proceedings in abeyance till such time.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th
respondent submits with reference to the counter affidavit
filed in this case, that the petitioner has chosen to challenge
Ext.P5(c) order dated 22.6.2009 passed by the 2nd
respondent, whereby subsistence allowance has been
ordered to be paid by the 2nd respondent. The learned
counsel submits that without raising any challenge against
Ext.P5(c), which in turn has become finalised, the prayer in
the writ petition is not sustainable and the recovery
proceedings are not liable to be intercepted.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits
that the averments and allegations raised by the petitioner
are contrary to the actual facts and figures and that Ext.R5
(a) dated 8.5.2006 was actually issued by the then
President by name Shri. M.Mohanan, whereas the husband
W.P.(C). NO.9609 OF 2010 3
of the petitioner is one Shri. Prasad. Referring to Exts.P5 and
P6 proceedings produced along with I.A No.4810 of 2010,
the learned counsel of the 5th respondent also submits that
Ext. R5(c) order was passed by 2nd respondent very much
after hearing the petitioner as well. But since there is a
specific case for the petitioner that review petition is
pending before the 2nd respondent against R5(c), which is
sought to be executed by filing Ext.P1 representation,
simultaneously requesting to keep recovery proceedings in
abeyance, this Court finds that the matter requires to be
finalised by the 2nd respondent passing appropriate orders in
the review petition.
4. In the above circumstances, the 2nd respondent is
directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in the
review petition stated as filed by the petitioner and pending
before the said respondent, after affording an opportunity to
the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent and at the
earliest; at any rate within one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. The recovery
W.P.(C). NO.9609 OF 2010 4
proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till such time. If no
review petition is pending, the respondents are at liberty to
proceed with further steps from the stage where it stands
now.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
mns