Loading...
Responsive image

T.M.Joseph vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 December, 2006

Kerala High Court
T.M.Joseph vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 December, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
  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’.

W.P.(C).5216/2006

2

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

W.P.(C).5216/2006

3

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

W.P.(C).5216/2006

4

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

parties.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

J.M.JAMES

JUDGE

mrcs

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