IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31670 of 2008(T)
1. T.K.KANNAPPAN, S/O. T.S. KANNAN,
... Petitioner
2. P.K.PEETHAMBARAN, DEPUTY MARKETING
3. MOHAN P. DEPUTY MARKETING MANAGER,
4. ALEY LOUIS, ASSISTANT FINANCE MANAGER,
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR-
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF COIR DEVELOPMENT,
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SMT.S.KARTHIKA
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SC, COIRFED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/08/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.31670 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners joined the service of the first respondent
in the workmen category. While so, they contend that, they
were promoted to the Managerial cadre from August, 2003.
In this writ petition what they are claiming is the benefit of
Rule 189(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules
which provides that all employees of the Society shall be
eligible for Dearness Allowance at the rates allowed by the
Government to their employees.
2. The background in which they claimed the
aforesaid benefit is that, certain managerial employees of
the first respondent approached this court by filing
O.P.No.801/98, claiming the benefit of Rule 189(3)
following the pay revision which was implemented with
effect from 1.1.1996. That original petition was disposed of
WP(c).No.31670/08 2
by Ext.P5 judgment rendered on 16.3.2004 directing that the
petitioners therein shall be extended the benefit of Rule 189
(3), with effect from 1.1.1996. Writ Appeal No.1435/04 was
filed by the first respondent against Ext.P1 judgment and
during its pendency, they entered into a settlement with the
petitioners in Ext.P1. A copy of the settlement is Ext.P2 dated
12.4.2005 where it was agreed to pay dearness allowance,
during the period from 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2003 as against
1.1.1996, specified in Ext.P1. On that basis, the writ appeal
was also disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment and Ext.P2
settlement was implemented as per Ext.P4 order dated
8.6.2007.
3. According to the petitioners, the benefit of the
judgment and the settlement was extended to certain
managerial employees and there upon, it is stated that they
also claimed the benefit with effect from 1.1.1996 by filing
representations. Representations were turned down and
thereupon they approached this court by filing W.P(c).
WP(c).No.31670/08 3
No.25132/07 resulting in Ext.P5 judgment which directed the
2nd respondent to consider the claim in the light of Ext.P1
judgment referred to above. It is stated that accordingly, the
matter was considered and by Ext.P9 order passed by the 2nd
respondent, who held that the petitioners were working in
the workmen category and therefore Ext.P1 and P2 are not
applicable in their case. It is also stated that the employees in
the workmen category were eligible only for variable dearness
allowance up to 31.12.2003, in terms of Ext.P10 settlement
entered into between the management and workmen. It was
thereupon that this writ petition is filed.
4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that,
admittedly the petitioner are now working in the managerial
cadre since August, 2003 and therefore are entitled to parity
in payment of Dearness Allowace. It is stated that at any rate
the first respondent cannot take a stand that such employees
are not eligible for the benefit of Rule 189(3) . However,
counsel for the first respondent resist the prayer. According to
WP(c).No.31670/08 4
him, the petitioners were workmen until they were promoted
to the managerial cadre. It is contended that such workmen
are covered by Ext.P10 settlement and if so their entitlement is
only for the DA as provided therein.
5. True, when the claim originally raised and dealt with
even in Ext.P9, would appear to be for the benefit of Dearness
Allowance at Government rate for the period form 1.1.1996.
Admittedly, the petitioners were workmen till they were
promoted into the Managerial cadre in August, 2003. If that
be so, for the period they were working in the workmen
category, the petitioners could not have claimed the dearness
allowance that was payable for those in the managerial cadre.
In so far as the workmen are concerned, they are covered by
Ext.P10 settlement and the payment of D.A to the petitioners
so long as they are workmen can only be in terms thereof.
However, once they were promoted into the managerial cadre,
they are entitled to be paid D.A as is being paid to others in
the managerial cadre. Since those in the managerial cadre are
WP(c).No.31670/08 5
paid D.A, in terms of Ext.P1, the claim of the petitioners for
parity in payment of D.A for the period subsequent to their
promotion to the managerial cadre cannot be disputed.
6. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing
the respondents to pay Dearness Allowance to the petitioners
for the period subsequent to their promotion to the
Managerial Cadre at the same rate at which D.A is paid to the
other employees in the managerial cadre.
In view of the above direction Ext.P9 order is set aside.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/