IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25655 of 2006(D)
1. M. SASIDHARAN NAIR, MADHURIMA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOINT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
3. AYIROOPPARA FARMER'S SERVICE
4. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR
For Respondent :SRI.G.BIJU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :20/07/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.25655 OF 2006
------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner entered the service of the 3rd respondent as
a Clerk on 22.7.1978. It is stated that his promotion as
Branch Manager became due on 1.8.1986. According to the
petitioner, to prevent him from earning his due
promotion, disciplinary action was initiated and punishment
was also imposed. The punishment imposed was set aside
by the Industrial Tribunal Kollam in I.D.No.11/90, which
was confirmed by this court in the judgment in
OP.No.8071/92 filed by the Bank.
2. Meanwhile, petitioner submits that his promotion
as Branch Manager became due on 1.7.1990.
Subsequently, his promotion as Managing Director became
due on 1.7.1996. As according to the petitioner his due
promotions were denied, he moved the Joint Registrar and
WP(c).No.25655/06 2
also the Government. The Government issued Ext.P2,
upholding his claims, but however, that order was not obeyed
by the Bank.
3. Again the petitioner moved the Government resulting
in Ext.P3 order directing that the monetary benefits and also
promotion be given. Even thereafter there was no progress in
the matter. Therefore, the petitioner approached this court by
filing O.P.No.29942/99 mainly praying for the implementation
of Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 referred to above. By Ext.P4 judgment,
rendered on 12th July, 2000, this court held that since Exts.P2
and P3 orders were remaining in force those orders are liable
to be implemented. On that basis Government was ordered
to pass consequential orders in implementation of the earlier
orders referred to above.
4. Even thereafter, the benefits were not extended which
led the petitioner to file a contempt of court case as C.C.
No.1394/02. In that contempt petition, Ext.P5 additional
affidavit was filed by the respondent therein, where it was
WP(c).No.25655/06 3
stated in paragraph 4 that he had no objection in any authority
of the Co-operative Department deciding on the claims of the
petitioner.
5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was appointed as the
Managing Director in 2002 and subsequently by Ext.P1 order
dated 1.3.2004, petitioner was allowed to retire under a
voluntary retirement scheme. Following Ext.P5 affidavit
referred to above, he moved the Joint Registrar of Co-
operative Societies by filing Exts.P10 and P11 representations
for quantifying his dues. The counsel for the petitioner also
made available before me a communication dated 27.7.2007
issued by the Joint Registrar expressing his willingness to
proceed with the matter.
6. Petitioner submits that he and his wife and mother
had availed of loans from the Bank and that he represented to
the Bank requesting that the liability be adjusted from out of
his terminal benefits. It is his compliant that without allowing
the request so made, with a vengeance, the Bank initiated
WP(c).No.25655/06 4
coercive action against their sureties and it is at that stage
this writ petition was filed.
7. In this writ petition what the petitioner now submits is
that, as stated in Ext.P5 additional affidavit filed in the
Contempt of Court proceedings he moved the Joint Registrar
by filing Exts.P10 and 11 and that the joint Registrar should
quantify the amounts which are due to him and that from out
of the amount that is found to be due, the liability due from
the petitioner, his mother and his wife should be adjusted and
the balance should be released to him.
8. I heard the counsel for the parties. Having regard to
the averments made by the Bank in Ext.P5 affidavit referred to
above I do not find any reason why the Joint Registrar should
not be asked to consider the representations made. Therefore
the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.
The first respondent shall, consider Exts.P10 and P11
representations filed by the petitioner with notice to the
petitioner and the 3rd respondent Bank and determine the
WP(c).No.25655/06 5
monetary entitlement of the petitioner on account of Exts.P2,
P3 and P4 referred to above. This shall be done as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from
the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is
directed that, if emoluments are revised by the first
respondent, necessarily supplementary contribution if any that
is due to the 4th respondent shall be met by the 3rd
respondent. It is also directed that from out of the amounts
that are found to be due to the petitioner, it will be open to
the 3rd respondent Bank to adjust the liability of the petitioner,
his wife and his mother, after giving credit to the amount
realised pursuant to the interim order and the balance amount
due to the petitioner shall be released. It is directed that in the
meanwhile until orders are passed by the first respondent as
above the interim order will remain in force.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.25655/06 6