IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30350 of 2004(K)
1. K. KUNCHUKUTTAN, S/O. KUNCHUVELAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES
... Respondent
2. THE ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.SOCIETIES
3. THE VILAYANCHATHANNUR SERVICE
4. THE PRESIDENT, THE VILAYANCHATHANNUR
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
For Respondent :SRI.LEO GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :28/08/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 30350 OF 2004 (K)
=====================
Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition was filed by Sri.K.Kunchukuttan, who was
an employee in the 3rd respondent Bank and retired on 31/7/2000
while working as its Secretary. In this writ petition, what he
prayed for is that the monetary benefits that are due to him
should be released. It is stated that by Ext.P2, the dispute in
relation to the monetary claims was settled and that final
settlement was inordinately delayed. It was in these
circumstances, the writ petition was filed.
2. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner
expired and his legal representatives have got themselves
impleaded as additional writ petitioners.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd
respondent-the society, where the deceased petitioner was the
Secretary. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that in pursuance
to Ext.P2 proceedings referred to above, the amounts that were
due to the deceased employee was quantified at Rs.70,580/- and
Ext.R3(a) statement discloses this calculation. It is stated that
WPC 30350/04
:2 :
due to wrong pay revision benefits granted to the employees of
the Bank w.e.f. 01/04/99, petitioner had received an erroneous
payment of Rs.28,216/-, the details of which are indicted in Ext.R3
(b) report of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is
also stated that as per Ext.R3(c) report of the Assistant Registrar
of Co-operative Societies, a sum of Rs.41,633/- is due to be
recovered towards the excess amount paid by way of gratuity to
the petitioner. Thus, according to the 3rd respondent, the total
amount to be recovered from the petitioner is Rs.69,849/- and the
petitioner is eligible to be paid only the balance amount of
Rs.731/-. It is stated that while they were taking steps to make
payment of the said amount, petitioner expired on 10/12/2004
and that they were willing to pay the admitted amount.
4. In the reply affidavit filed by the additional petitioners,
they submit that while they do not deny the veracity of the
quantification of the dues done as per Ext.R3(a), they dispute the
claim for recovery raised by the 3rd respondent society as stated
in Ext.R3(b) and (c) reports referred to above. It is stated that as
at present the petitioner is entitled to be paid a net amount of
Rs.74,386/-.
WPC 30350/04
:3 :
5. The sum total of the pleadings in this writ petition
would show that while the respondent by Ext.R3(a) concedes the
liability to the petitioner for the amount mentioned therein, the
petitioners also do not dispute the veracity of such calculation.
The dispute is confined only regarding the permissibility or
otherwise of the recovery effected by the Society as per Exts.R3
(b) and (c). This dispute in my view, is one which should be
pursued before the statutory authorities and it is for such
authorities to consider the dispute in appropriate proceedings.
6. Therefore, I direct that it will be open to the petitioners
to move the 1st respondent, by an appropriate application, which
if made within six weeks from today, the 1st respondent shall
consider the justifiability of the recovery ordered as per Exts.R3
(b) and (c) referred to above with notice to the petitioners and the
3rd respondent society and pass appropriate orders thereon.
7. Petitioners may produce a copy of this judgment
before the 1st respondent for compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp