IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1173 of 2008()
1. MATTANCHERRY SARVAJANIC CO-OPERATIVE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. B.S.SANJEEV, APPRAISER, MATTANCHERRY
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHAI M PAIKADAY(SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :19/06/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
W.A.NO.1173 OF 2008 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
KOSHY,J.
Writ petitioner in this case was working in the appellant
Co-operative Bank as an Appraiser from 19.12.1990 on
Commission basis. He had full time work. This Court in
W.A.No.1765/2003, noticed that Joint Registrar recommended
the regularisation of the appointment of the petitioner and
considered all other facts and directed by Ext.A1 judgment to
regularsie the services of the petitioner. At paragraph 4 of the
judgment it is stated as follows:
“4. Circumstances do indicate that the
Bank requires assistance of an Appraiser and
they are prepared to fill up the post on a
regular basis. When there is need for
permanent employee sanction need not be
withheld, on the plea that the Act and Rules
did to lay down qualifications in respect of
the Appraiser to be appointed in theW.A.1173/08 2
Co-operative Institution.”
However, it was stated that regularisation should be at the
discretion of the Bank and by appreciating the nature of the
service he was rendering during the past years, they will be
able to decide as to the method to compensate him. It is
further stated that even if the Registrar did not approve the
same, Bank can regularise his service on their own terms.
Ext.A1 judgment was appealed against by the Joint Registrar
as well as the Government. Bank was the party to the writ
appeals also. Again petitioner approached this Court when
two posts of Appraiser were notified during the pendency of
the writ appeal against Annexure A1 judgment. At that time
Registrar by order dated 23.6.2003 directed to regularise the
service of the petitioner. Recording the same, Ext.P2
judgment was passed wherein, the order of the Registrar
dated 23.6.2003 is quoted as follows:
“In obedience to the judgment of Hon’ble
High Court of Kerala in O.P.No.220/2003 A
dated 23.5.2003, the bank is permitted to
regularise the petitioner Sri.B.S.Sanjeev asW.A.1173/08 3
Appraisor in the service of the Bank
immediately. The confirmation will be
subject to the decisions of the Hon’ble High
Court on an appeal filed by Registrar of Co-
operative Societies before the Hon’ble High
Court. The action taken by the bank should
be reported to this office promptly.”
The learned Judge thereafter directed to regularise the
services of the petitioner as ordered by the Registrar and
directed the Bank that only one post of Appraiser alone shall
be notified. In that appeal filed against Annexure A1
judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in the common
judgment dated 14.6.2005, in W.A.Nos.1765/2003 and
667/2004 considered the matter in detail. In the judgment, at
paragraph 3 it is observed as follows:
“3. It is seen that the Joint Registrar,
who recommended the regularisation of
appointment of the petitioner, as he was the
only person who participated in the interview
and was successful also, as can be seen from
Ext.P8 communication, filed appeal against
such appointment. We see no ground to
interfere with the judgment impugned in this
writ appeal and therefore W.A.No.1785 of
2003 is dismissed.”
W.A.1173/08 4
Meanwhile, this Court directed the bank that only one
vacancy can be notified and in paragraph 5, further it is held
as follows:
“5. Since the petitioner has to be
regularised in view of Ext.P3 representation
and also of the direction in the impugned
judgment in W.P.(C).No.20947 of 2003, the
Bank shall make arrangements only to fill up
the remaining vacancy of one post of
appriaser.”
This is an inter party judgment and it is binding on the
appellant and on the Joint Registrar. After the above
judgment, then the question to be considered was whether
petitioner should be regularised from the date of initial
engagement on commission basis from 19.12.1990 or on the
date when regular post was sanctioned (9.6.1997) or on any
subsequent days, and, by Ext.P4, Registrar has decided that
the regularisation shall be effected from 9.6.1997, the date on
which such a post was regularly sanctioned as per the
approved staff strength of the Bank as he was performing the
W.A.1173/08 5
work of the Appraiser even before the post was sanctioned.
Considering these circumstances, the learned Single Judge
held that there is a reasonable and identifiable yardstick for
the fixation to 9.6.1997 as the date from which the petitioner
is directed to be regularised. We are of the opinion that there
is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The
inter party judgment has become final. It is submitted that
there was subsequent retrenchment of staff strength due to
degradation of the Bank. It is submitted that Bank has
challenged that decision of reduction of staff strength. We
are not considering the question of retrenchment after the
reduction of staff strength. Only question to be decided in
this case is regarding the date on which the petitioner is to be
regularised. He was not regularised earlier despite
requirement because of the absence of a sanctioned post and
when the post of Appraiser was sanctioned, Court directed
that one post alone can be notified as in one post, petitioner
was already working. That finding became final. In these
circumstances, the contention of the appellant that he can be
regularised only with effect from 23.6.2003 and not from
W.A.1173/08 6
9.6.1997 cannot be accepted. We see no ground to interfere
in the impugned judgment, and hence, this appeal is
dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
prp
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
——————————————————–
M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 ()
———————————————————
J U D G M E N T
———————————————————
26th May, 2008