IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12946 of 2008(N)
1. P.T.MOHANDAS, AGED 55 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. THE TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL &
3. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.G.ARUN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :29/05/2008
O R D E R
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
==================================
W.P.(C)No.12946 of 2008
==================================
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Learned Government Pleader appears for the
first respondent. Learned standing counsel
Sri.V.G.Arun appears for the second respondent.
Learned standing counsel Sri.P.V.Mohanan appears
for the third respondent. Party is represented by
counsel.
2. Petitioner was an employee of the second
respondent. He, going by the pleadings in the writ
petition, was compulsorily retired from service as
a consequence of disciplinary proceedings initiated
against him on alleged misconduct.
3. Petitioner claimed pension on the ground
that he is entitled to such relief in spite of
compulsory retirement. That stands negatived by
WPC12946/08
-:2:-
the Assistant Registrar in terms of Ext.P4. This
is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues
that compulsory retirement and dismissal are two
among the punishments in terms of the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act and Rules and compulsory
retirement, not being one of the modes of removal
enumerated in Clause 18(2) of the Co-operative
Employees Pension Scheme, does not amount to
dismissal and hence the petitioner is entitled to
pension under that Scheme.
5. Clause 18(2) of the Pension Scheme, as
quoted by the petitioner in Ground A of the writ
petition, is to the effect that an employee, who
has been dismissed or removed for misconduct,
insolvency or inefficiency shall not be eligible
for pension. Petitioner has not been dismissed
from service, but he has been removed from service.
WPC12946/08
-:3:-
The mode of removal is compulsory retirement. That
removal by compulsory retirement was indisputably
owing to a finding of misconduct in a disciplinary
proceeding. However, having regard to the proviso
of Clause 18(2), the authority imposing the
penalty, namely, the second respondent, is
competent to recommend the grant of pension. That
is essentially within the domain of the second
respondent to decide in accordance with law, having
regard to the said proviso.
In the aforesaid circumstances, while affirming
Ext.P4, it is ordered directing that the second
respondent will consider whether the petitioner’s
case is one fit for being recommended for pension
in terms of Clause 18(2) of the Pension Scheme and
such a decision shall be taken, untrammelled by
anything stated in Ext.P4. Let that be done within
an outer limit of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment and a
WPC12946/08
-:4:-
representation from the petitioner invoking the
benefit of such a proviso. No costs.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
Judge.
sl/2/6/08