A.Pushpalatha vs Kallur Service Co-Op. Bank … on 28 May, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 14330 of 2009(I)


1. A.PUSHPALATHA, INTERNAL AUDITOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KALLUR SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LIMITED NO.R
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :28/05/2009

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                  -------------------------
                    W.P.(C.) No.14330 of 2009
             ---------------------------------
               Dated, this the 28th day of May, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was an Accountant working in the 1st

respondent Bank. With effect from 01/04/2003, she was promoted

as Internal Auditor. This was on the basis of resolution dated

17/02/2003, passed by the Bank relaxing the qualification subject

to the approval of the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent

by Ext.P1, granted approval only with effect from the date of the

order, namely 05/03/2005, and appeal filed by the petitioner

against the aforesaid order resulted in its rejection, by Ext.P3 order

of the 3rd respondent. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition

is filed, and the petitioner claims that she is entitled to the benefit

of the relaxation with effect from the date of promotion i.e.

01/04/2003.

2. The petitioner rightly relied on the judgment of this

Court in Dasan v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (2007(1) KLT

581), where after detailed consideration of this very issue, this

WP(C) No.14330/2009
-2-

Court has held that an employee like the petitioner is entitled for

the benefit of relaxation as resolved by the Committee.

3. If that be so, Exts.P1 & P3 giving the benefit of relaxation

with effect from the date of Ext.P1 order is erroneous and for that

reason, Ext.P1 order to that extent and Ext.P3 order rejecting the

appeal deserve to be set aside and I do so.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of declaring

that the petitioner is eligible to have the benefit of relaxation as

resolved by the Committee with effect from 01/04/2003.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg