IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 5216 of 2006(U) 1. T.M.JOSEPH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY (RTD), ... Petitioner Vs 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE ... Respondent 2. PANAMARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN For Respondent :SRI.M.SASINDRAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES Dated :15/12/2006 O R D E R J.M.JAMES, J. ------------------- W.P.(C). 5216/2006 -------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2006 JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner is a retired employee of the
second respondent, Panamaram Service Co-operative
Bank, Wayanad. He retired on health reasons. He was
entitled for retirement benefits, and he had been paid with
gratuity. On acceptance, he endorsed that he is not
entitled for any other further claims.
2. The learned counsel submits that such an
undertaking was only with regard to the gratuity amount
due to him. It is further submitted that the writ petitioner
is entitled for Dearness Allowance from 1.7.1999 to
30.4.2002 and the benefits due under leave surrender.
The writ petitioner claims that the amount of Rs.39,534/-
is due from the second respondent, bank, as per Rule 189
(3) and 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, in
short ‘the Rules’.
3. I heard the arguments advanced by both sides.
The first respondent had heard the Secretary and
President of the Second respondent, bank, as well as the
writ petitioner. The Joint Registrar also considered the
Dearness Allowance entitlements under Rule 189(3) of
the Rules. The representation of the writ petitioner was
considered by the first respondent and on 27.5.2005, he
passed an order remanding the entire matter to the
second respondent, bank, to re-consider afresh the
claims including sanctioning and payment of quantum of
Dearness Allowance prayed for, by the writ petitioner, as
the same would not affect so much of the financial
position of the bank. Accordingly, the plea of the writ
petitioner was held to be allowed.
4. The second respondent, thereafter passed
Ext.P2, sanctioning an amount of Rs.30,709/-. The
contention of the writ petitioner is that the amount
sanctioned comes only as a portion of the gratuity and
do not cover the Dearness Allowance for the period
stated above as well as the payment for the surrender of
the leave claimed by the petitioner.
5. The counsel for the petitioner brought to my
notice about the scheme that had been evolved for
making payments to the voluntarily retired employees of
the second respondent, bank, and also an agreement
entered into between the second respondent, bank, and
the employees therein. However, the counsel for the
second respondent content that the writ petitioner will
not come withing the provisions of the scheme evolved
between the second respondent as well as the employees
therein, who had retired voluntarily. The benefits had
to be given to such retired employees on voluntary basis,
and the writ petitioner did not retire voluntarily, but on
health reasons. The learned counsel for the writ
petitioner, however, challenged the above contention and
he drew my attention to paragraph 2 of Ext.P1 order of
the first respondent dated 27.5.2005.
6. After hearing both sides and considering the
submissions made by either side, without entering into
any discussions on the merit of the matter, I dispose of
this writ petition, setting aside Ext.P2, except to the
extent of granting of gratuity amount, as stated therein.
I further direct the second respondent, bank, to hear the
writ petitioner, consider all contentions and pass orders
afresh in accordance with Rule 189(3) of the Rules and
other provisions of the law, together with the conditions
contained in the agreement, if any, between the bank
and its employees.
7. The above exercise shall be completed by the
second respondent within two months from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment, by either of the
The writ petition is disposed of as above.