Loading...

M.M.Mathew vs Assistant Registrar (General) on 10 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.M.Mathew vs Assistant Registrar (General) on 10 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7012 of 2009(V)


1. M.M.MATHEW, MUTHUPALAKKAL, UDUMBANNOOR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE UDUMBANNOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :10/12/2009

 O R D E R
                             S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                       ==================

                        W.P.(C).No. 7012 of 2009

                       ==================

               Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009

                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was an employee of the 2nd respondent bank. He

retired from service on 31.12.2006. Since there was considerable

delay in paying his pension, he took up the matter with the 2nd

respondent and the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that the

Pension Board has directed them to remit an amount of Rs.87,881/-

towards pension fund, out of which, Rs.51,781/- is to be remitted by

the petitioner. He was directed to remit the amount before

31.12.2007. Believing the 2nd respondent, the petitioner remitted the

amount on 31.12.2007. Subsequently, the petitioner came to

understand that the amount is liable to be paid by the bank and the

petitioner is not liable to pay the same. Even though the petitioner

took up the issue with the respondents, there was no response. The

petitioner filed W.P.(C). No.19716/2007, in which, by Ext.P2 judgment,

this Court directed the 1st respondent to take appropriate action on

Ext.P1 complaint. By Ext.P3, the 1st respondent found that the amount

illegally collected is to be reimbursed to the petitioner. Even though

that order was passed on 29.9.2008, the said order has not been

complied with. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction to the

society to refund the said amount with interest.

2

2. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing the

2nd respondent also.

3. After hearing the arguments, I am not satisfied that the 2nd

respondent can validly retain the said amount. Accordingly, this writ

petition is allowed. The 2nd respondent is directed to pay the amount

covered by Ext.P3 with 6% interest from 29.9.2008 within one month

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

sdk+                                               S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

          ///True copy///




                              P.A. to Judge

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information