IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2181 of 2009()
1. T.P.KUMARAN, `HARISREE',
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MOKERI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :03/11/2009
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.A.No.2181 of 2009
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009
JUDGMENT
Kurian Joseph,J.
The 4th respondent in the writ petition is the
appellant herein. The first respondent/writ petitioner
approached this court challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. As per Ext.P6
impugned proceedings the Joint Registrar fixed the scale of
Rs.1075-1740 on granting the second higher grade on
completion of 20 years of service. The order was given effect
to from 1-7-1991. According to the Bank the 4th respondent
having received the benefits while in service, was not justified
in invoking the supervisory power of the Joint Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, particularly after retirement, in the
matter of fixation of the scale of pay. According to the Bank
the fixation made as per Ext.P3 on 30-7-1998 had become
final and the same was not liable to be reviewed. The learned
single Judge set aside the impugned Ext.P6 order mainly on
W.A.No.2181 of 2009
-:2:-
the ground of delay and laches on the part of the 4th respondent
and thus aggrieved, the appeal at the instance of the 4th
respondent.
2. No doubt, at the first blush it would appear that there is
gross delay on the part of the 4th respondent in invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies in the matter of fixation of pay. The delay cannot
defeat the justice. We do not find any serious contention for the
Bank that the 4th respondent is not otherwise entitled to the
fixation. Therefore, if an employee is entitled to a benefit,
particularly in the matter of fixation of pay on granting 20 years
of higher grade and if a mistake had crept in and if the said
mistake went un-noticed by the beneficiary of the proceedings
and if on a later occasion the said employee duly invokes the
power vested under the Act in the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies for exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction and in such
circumstances, if the said authority looks into the matter and
takes steps to rectify the mistake, it cannot be said that there is
delay. True, the Joint Registrar has reviewed his own order
Ext.P3. But as we noted above, law cannot be helpless in taking
W.A.No.2181 of 2009
-:3:-
a measure so as to advance justice, and that too, to an employee
who worked in an establishment. By taking such steps evidently
the Joint Registrar has only rectified a mistake committed by him
while passing Ext.P3 order. At the worst, in such circumstances,
the employer will be justified in denying interest while claiming
the benefit arising out of the refixation of pay. We find from the
impugned order that there is no order regarding payment of
interest. We also find that the principle behind the view taken by
us has been settled by the Supreme Court in Union of India v.
Tarsem Singh 2008(8) SCC 648.
In the above circumstances we set aside the judgment of
the learned single Judge and allow this appeal and dismiss the
writ petition. The benefits flowing out of Ext.P6, if not already
disbursed, shall be disbursed within a period of one month from
the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ahg.
KURIAN JOSEPH &
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
—————————
W.A.No.2181 of 2009
—————————-
JUDGMENT
3rd November, 2009