IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 3421 of 2004(G)
1. V.N.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTER OF CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,SC, ALP.DIST.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
Dated :19/09/2006
O R D E R
K.THANKAPPAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO. 3421 OF 2004
------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2006
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 intimation and Ext.P3 order issued
by respondents 1 and 2 respectively. By Ext.P3, the second respondent –
Registrar of Co-operative Societies directed the Bank to recover the excess
amount paid to the petitioner due to the wrong promotion given to him
and the pay scale fixed on promotion.
2. The petitioner joined the service of the first respondent – Bank as
Typist on 15.11.1966 and on 1.8.1972, he was appointed as Steno Typist .
He was subsequently promoted to the post of Junior Accountant on
1.7.1978 and Senior Accountant on 1.10.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner
was given higher grade benefit of III grade equal to the promotion post of
Branch Manager with effect from 1.7.1996 and his basic pay was fixed at
Rs.4925/-. While so, the first respondent – Bank as per Ext.P2
communication informed the petitioner that his promotion as Senior
Accountant and Branch Manager and the pay scales fixed were irregular as
W.P.(C)NO.3421/2004 2
the petitioner did not possess the required qualification and he was
directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,68,116/-.
3. The petitioner has already retired from service. Learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that both Exts.P2 and P3 are arbitrary
and illegal. Counsel further submits that the second respondent issued
Ext.P3 without giving the petitioner an opportunity to explain his case. It
is the further case of the petitioner that the promotions were effected in
1988 and 1996 and Ext.P3 is issued only on 3.7.2003 and that the mistake
committed was not due to the fault of the petitioner. The petitioner
further submits that no objection was raised even though annual audits
were conducted. Hence, according to the petitioner, Exts.P2 and P3 are
not sustainable.
4. A counter affidavit is filed for and on behalf of the first
respondent – Bank. Relying on the counter affidavit, learned counsel
appearing for the Bank submits that the pay of the petitioner on promotion
was revised on the basis of the undertaking given by the petitioner that he
shall refund the excess amount, if any, drawn by him.
W.P.(C)NO.3421/2004 3
5. Admittedly, the petitioner entered service as Typist on
15.11.1966 and considering the work done by him, he was appointed as
Steno Typist. When a vacancy of Junior Accountant arose, the petitioner
was promoted to that post and his pay was refixed and grade promotions
were also effected. Now, as per Ext.P3, the second respondent found that
the promotions given to the petitioner were irregular as the petitioner did
not possess the required qualification. It is an admitted fact that the
petitioner had worked in different posts and the first respondent was
satisfied with his work. The delay caused in pointing out the mistake is
not due to any fault of the petitioner. Further, while passing Ext.P3 order,
the petitioner was not heard. In the above circumstances, Exts.P2 and P3
are quashed and there will be a direction to the second respondent to
reconsider Ext.P3 order and take a decision as early as possible, at any rate
within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after
affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above.
(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)
sp/
W.P.(C)NO.3421/2004 4