IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19770 of 2007(C)
1. G.THOMAS, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 55 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
5. THE AMBALATHUMBHAGOM SERVICE
For Petitioner :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.DIVAKARAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 19770 OF 2007 (C)
=====================
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is an employee of the 5th respondent, a Co-
operative Bank. While working as Senior Clerk, by Ext.P1, the 1st
respondent introduced revision of scale of pay of employees in
the Co-operative sector. However, the benefit of Ext.P1 pay
revision was not extended to the petitioner and he made
representations to the Board of Directors and also to the Assistant
Registrar. That resulted in Ext.P3, where he was told that there
was a criminal case pending against him and although he was
exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, in view of the
pendency of the criminal case he cannot be extended the benefit
of Ext.P1 pay revision. It is thereupon that this writ petition is
filed by the petitioner.
2. Petitioner has also produced Ext.P4, an order passed
by the Bank promoting him subsequently as an Internal Auditor.
He has also produced Ext.P5, a representation made by him to
the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, which also did not evoke
any response.
WPC 19770/07
:2 :
3. As already seen, in Ext.P3, the only reason stated by
the Assistant Registrar for declining the petitioner the benefit of
pay revision implemented by Ext.P1 is the pendency of a criminal
case. It would appear that in relation to acceptance of certain
gold ornaments in the Bank, disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly charge sheet was
issued, an enquiry was conducted by an enquiry officer and
Ext.P6 is the report submitted by the enquiry officer. A reading of
Ext.P6 show that there was no evidence to find the petitioner
guilty and accordingly, he was exonerated of the charges. It was
only thereupon that the petitioner who was kept under suspension
was reinstated and it is on that basis he is continuing in service
even now.
4. Subsequently, a criminal case was got registered, in
which, still later, the petitioner was also arrayed as an accused.
That criminal case was stayed by Ext.P7 order passed by this
Court and it is submitted that the trial is going on.
5. Irrespective of the pendency of the criminal case, fact
remains that the petitioner has been reinstated and is discharging
his duties. If that be so, he is entitled to be paid wages treating
WPC 19770/07
:3 :
like any other similar employee and there is absolutely no
justification for declining the benefit of Ext.P1. Apart from the
pendency of the criminal case, none of the respondents could also
point out any provision of law justifying the stand taken in Ext.P3.
In such circumstances, I cannot uphold Ext.P3 and Ext.P3
therefore will stand set aside.
6. Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of
Ext.P1 pay revision to the petitioner as in the case of other
employees of the Bank. Needful shall be done, as expeditiously
as possible and arrears shall be released within 8 weeks of
production of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp