IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 745 OF 2022
AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2021 IN W.A.NO.535
OF 2021
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
V RAVEENDRAN, AGED 61 YEARS, TC 36/685,
SAMKARAMANGALAM EENJAKKAL, VALLAKADAVU P.O,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695008
BY ADVS.
SAIJO HASSAN
BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
P.PARVATHY
AATHIRA SUNNY
NAZRIN HALLAJ
ABHIRAMI DINESH
RENJINI M. RENJITH
N.KRISHNA OZHAKKANAT
ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.)
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
A BINU, SECRETARY, AGE, ADDRESS AND S/O NOT KNOWN
TO THE RESPONDENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXCISE
DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, T 1068,
FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SRI.SADCHITH P KURUP
SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
SRI.P.P THAJUDHEEN-SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.M SASINDRAN - STANDING COUNSEL
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
==================
Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.745 of 2022
[arising out of the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2021 in W.A.No.535
of 2021]
==================
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The afore-captioned Contempt of Court Case has been instituted alleging non-compliance of the directions and orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court as per Annexure- A7 judgment dated 24.3.2021 in W.A.No.535 of 2021.
2. In view of the nature of the issues, we have required the assistance of Sri.P.P Thajudeen, learned Special Government Pleader (Co-operation) as well as Sri.M.Sasindran, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Co-operative Employees Pension Board, who have rendered necessary assistance to this Court in this matter.
3. Heard Sri.Saijo Hassan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Sadchith P. Kurup, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Sri. P.P Thajudeen, learned Special Government Pleader (Co-operation) representing the Departmental Authorities and Sri.M.Sasindran, learned Standing Counsel representing the Kerala Co-operative Employees Pension Board.
Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.745 of 2022
- : 2 :-
4. Initially, on 02.06.2022, we had ordered notice in this contempt case and had also requested Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, learned Special Government Pleader (Co-operation) to assist this Court, who has also given time to get instructions from the Departmental Authorities by the Joint Registrar and Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies concerned. Later, we had passed an order on 13.06.2022 recording the proceedings No.CS-4071/2022 dated 03.06.2022 issued by the Joint Registrar (General), Thiruvananthapuram. Later, we had passed an order dated 14.06.2022 in this case and the said order from Para 3 to 7 thereof reads as follows:
"3. Yesterday, when the matter was taken up, Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, learned Special Government Pleader (Co-operation) had submitted, on instructions, that the Joint Registrar (General), Thiruvananthapuram, has already issued proceedings No.CS-4071/2022 dated 03.06.2022, out of deference for due compliance of the directions issued by this Court in a series of judgments including the instant Annexure A7 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 24.03.2021 in WA No.535/2021. The contents of the said proceedings dated 03.06.2022 issued by the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram, containing the requisite directions to the respondent have been duly extracted in the order dated 13.06.2022 passed in this case.
4. Today, the respondent/Secretary has appeared in person has now appraised us that he would certainly comply with any direction that may be issued by this Court in Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.745 of 2022
- : 3 :-
respect of the subject matter in this contempt proceedings.
The above said fair stand taken by the respondent/Secretary is recorded.
5. Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondent/Secretary will immediately issue proceedings/order validating the appointment of the petitioner as Secretary of the respondent Co-operative Society in compliance with the decision already rendered by the General Body of the said Co-operative Society on 10.09.2007 and should also ensure that the pension papers of the petitioner should be duly signed, validated and forwarded to the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board so as to enable the petitioner to claim pension consequent to his retirement as Secretary of the said Society with effect from 30.09.2015.
6. Necessary action in this regard shall be duly rendered by the respondent Secretary within three days from today. In the said proceedings, the respondent Secretary will also be at liberty to cite the above proceedings dated 03.06.2022 issued by the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram, as recorded in the order dated 13.06.2022 passed by this Court in this contempt case. It is also to be noted that a copy of the said proceedings dated 03.06.2022 was already handed over by the Special Government Pleader (Co-operation) to the learned Standing Counsel of the respondent yesterday.
7. On receipt of the pension papers, the Kerala State Co-
operative Employees Pension Board will also take consequential action to ensure that the pensionary claims of the petitioner as above are duly honoured and settled."
5. Subsequently, we have passed a detailed order dated 17.06.2022 in this case, which reads as follows:
"Today, when the matter has been taken up for consideration, it is submitted on behalf of respondent that the respondent Society has now issued proceedings dated 15.06.2022, as per decision No.9 thereof, that steps will be taken to sanction the scale of pay of the post of Secretary to the petitioner for securing revised pensionary benefits as Secretary, from the Kerala State Co-operative Employees' Pension Board (for short, "the Pension Board") and also to consequentially grant Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.745 of 2022
- : 4 :-
promotion to the petitioner as Secretary with effect from 01.04.2007 and to sanction revised pay to the petitioner in the scale of pay of the post of Secretary.
2. The consequential proceedings regarding re-fixation of pay for getting the revised pensionary benefits has also been passed by the respondent on 15.06.2022. Further, the respondent Secretary has also made a requisition on 15.06.2022 to the Pension Board for revising the pension of the petitioner so that he will get pension as if he has retired from service from the post of Secretary in that scale of pay. Copies of the aforesaid proceedings have been made available to us by the counsel for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is reliably learnt that the respondent Society had earlier made pension contributions to the Pension Board in the case of the petitioner, reckoning it in the scale of pay of the post of the Secretary.
4. Sri.M.Sasindran, learned Standing Counsel for the Pension Board, wanted time to get instructions; and after securing telephonic instructions, he has submitted that the contribution was reckoned only for the purpose of sanctioning pension to the petitioner in the scale of pay of the lower post of Junior Clerk and an excess sum of Rs.26,000/- or so of the pension contribution is still with the Pension Board. Further that, it is for the first time that the Pension Board has received formal requisition from the respondent Society yesterday for revision of the pension to be sanctioned and disbursed to the petitioner in the post of Secretary of the Society. Further that, the records will have to be inspected and examined by the Pension Board and it has to be determined as to whether the contribution already paid by the respondent society in the case of the pension claims of the petitioner would be sufficient to disburse him pension in the scale of pay of the post of Secretary. If the amount already received is not sufficient for that purpose, then, the respondent Secretary will have to pay the differential amount to the Pension Board and communication in that regard will be sent by the Pension Board to the respondent Secretary. Further that, if the said amount is more than the requirement for paying pension in the post of Secretary, such excess amount paid by the respondent Society will be refunded to them. That, this process of determining these factual issues can be examined by the Pension Board only with the full cooperation of the respondent Secretary and that, time by three weeks may be granted to make further submissions in Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.745 of 2022
- : 5 :-
the matter and file a statement in the matter.
5. The claim of the petitioner has gone through various hurdles, which started after his retirement when the respondent Society has denied his claim. He had initially secured orders from the Cooperative Ombudsman. Thereafter, despite that, he had to approach the Kerala Human Rights Commission, who, in view of the stand taken by the respondent Society, was ultimately constrained to advise the petitioner to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition, in which, final verdict was rendered. Still further, the petitioner was constrained to file a contempt petition, which was disposed of. Thereafter, the petitioner was again constrained to file an application to restore the contempt proceedings, which was closed by the learned Single Judge giving liberty to file a review petition. The review petition was filed and entertained and the learned Single Judge granted substantial reliefs to the petitioner. Even at all these stages, the respondent Society has not raised serious objections to the claims of the petitioner, on the other hand, the respondent Society, through the learned counsel, had clearly taken the stand, as is recorded in para 3 of Annex.A3 judgment in the contempt petition, that they would certainly send the papers to the Assistant Registrar to secure its formal approval for the appointment of the petitioner as Secretary and thus, has clearly taken the stand that if the Departmental Authorities so approved, then, they have no issues in that regard. The Assistant Registrar had taken a hyper technical approach by stating that though the petitioner was appointed by the General Body of the Society, which is the supreme authority as per the statute as regards the Society, since the rules prescribe that the formal appointment order should have been issued by the Managing Committee, the initial appointment of the petitioner as Secretary in the year, 2007 cannot be approved. Later, in the application to reopen the contempt, this Court granted liberty to file the review petition. In the review petition also, the respondent Society has not taken any serious objection to the claims of the petitioner. Therein, the learned Single Judge, as per Annex.A6 order in the review petition, held that the insistence that the appointment of the petitioner should again be formally approved by the Departmental Authority could be given a go- bye and that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of the decision of the General Body of the Society and that he had continued in the post of Secretary from 2007 onwards and Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.745 of 2022
- : 6 :-
retired from service in 2015, and hence, his pension claims could be considered accordingly.
6. It is for the first time, at that point of time, that the respondent Secretary raised their objections by filing writ appeal, which resulted in Annex.A7 judgment. The only objection raised in the writ appeal is that the order of appointment issued to the petitioner should be formally ratified and validated by the Managing Committee. This Court gave liberty for the validation process, but, in substance, has directed that there is no question of denying the pension claims of the petitioner in the post of Secretary inasmuch as he was appointed as Secretary in the year 2007, and that too, by the decision of the Supreme Authority of the Society, namely, the General Body, and what is required is only a technical validation of the same by an authority, which is subordinate, namely, the Managing Committee. Thereafter, the respondent Secretary passed the proceedings denying validation of the appointment order by the Managing Committee. It is thereafter the respondent Society has passed orders informing that the Managing Committee has rejected the approval of the appointment order effectuated by the General Body. So, it can be seen that the petitioner has crossed one hurdle after the other. Ultimately, in the present contempt proceedings, the respondent Secretary has submitted that he would pass orders for the formal validation of the appointment of the petitioner as Secretary, in deference to the verdicts of this Court.
7. The claimant has been running from pillar to post from the year, 2015, onwards. So far, because of the present contempt proceedings, some proceedings have been passed, which are essentially in paper. The paper should attain life and accrued rights of the petitioner will have to be recognized and enforced by payment of the due benefits. We are of the firm view that if this Court now close the contempt case, there is every possibility of further confusions in the matter, more so particularly, in view of the consistent attitude shown by the respondent Society. More surprisingly, we have to note that the respondent Society consists of only serving Government officers of the Excise Department. The petitioner earlier was a paid Secretary. Now, the respondent Society is having an honorary Secretary, who is a serving Government servant. Such a Co-operative Society, which is having membership only of serving Government servants, is showing scant regard to the various verdicts of various forums staring from the Cooperative Ombudsman, the Kerala State Human Rights Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.745 of 2022
- : 7 :-
Commission, the Joint Registrar, writ proceedings and the contempt cases both at the Single Bench as well as at the Division Bench. Ultimately, it has also to be noted that it is only in view of the proactive involvement of Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, learned Special Government Pleader (Co-operation); and Sri.M.Sasindran, learned Standing Counsel for the Pension Board; that this Court secured substantial assistance for doing justice to the petitioner.
8. Ext.P4 produced in WP(C) No.9808/2019, which is a proceedings dated 23.01.2018 issued by the Additional Registrar/Secretary of the Pension Board, would show that one of the defects was that the appointment of the petitioner as Secretary has not secured the formal approval of the Joint Registrar. Now, in view of the deference shown to our directions, Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, learned Special Government Pleader (Co-operation), had instructed the Joint Registrar to intervene in the matter. Consequently, the Joint Registrar has passed proceedings No.CS-4071/2022 dated 03.06.2022 referred to in order dated 13.06.2022 passed by this Court in this contempt case, whereby the respondent Society has been directed to regularise the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Secretary so that his pension claims could be honoured in post of Secretary and to consequentially send his service book and pension papers to the Pension Board. It is only thereafter that the respondent Secretary has passed consequential proceedings. The respondent Secretary has assured us that he would take all expeditious steps immediately to ensure that there is no communication gap between the respondent Society and the Pension Board; and all necessary steps will be taken up with the Pension Board to ensure that the pension claims of the petitioner in the post of Secretary are duly sanctioned and disbursed. The above said undertaking made by the respondent Secretary is recorded.
9. The Secretary of the Pension Board may ascertain the factual aspects and then should immediately send a communication to the Secretary of the respondent Society as to any further step that may have been taken by the latter. Thereupon, the respondent Secretary shall give all such details and should render all cooperation to ensure that the pension claims of the petitioner as Secretary are duly honoured by the Pension Board.
10. Registry will show the names of Sri.M.Sasindran, learned Standing Counsel for the Pension Board; Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, learned Senior Counsel; and Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.745 of 2022
- : 8 :-
learned Special Government Pleader (Co-operation) in the cause list."
6. Thereafter, we have passed an order on 07.07.2022, recording the submissions of Sri.M.Sasindran, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Co-operative Employees Pension Board, as to the further steps that should be taken by the respondent Co-operative Society and the Departmental officers concerned, for resolving the impasse.
7. Later, an order dated 15.7.2022 has been passed in this contempt case, whereby it was recorded that in the light of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Co-operative Employees Pension Board, it appears that the main problems have been resolved and the revised pension has been sanctioned and arrears of pension have been disbursed by the pension board and arrears of pay and allowances have also been disbursed by the Co-operative Society Employer. Thereupon, we directed that the respondent Secretary to the Co-operative Society, the learned Standing Counsel for the Pension Board and the learned Counsel for the petitioner may file statements regarding the details of the revised benefits so paid, within 10 days. Pursuant thereto, the Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.745 of 2022
- : 9 :-
respondent Secretary of Co-operative society has filed counter affidavit dated 22.07.2022 in this case detailing out the various steps taken by the respondent Co-operative Society in the matter.
8. Later, this contempt case came up for consideration before us on 02.08.2022, and the said order passed on that day, reads as follows:
"Sri.M.Sasindran, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Co-operative Employees Pension Board, would submit on the basis of instructions, that revised pension at the rate of Rs.4,347/- per month has been sanctioned and disbursed to the petitioner and arrears of pension coming to an amount of Rs.31,688/- for the period from October, 2015 up to July, 2022 has also been disbursed to the petitioner. That, thereafter, the respondent Co-operative Society had given yet another revised statement of fixation of pay for the purpose of further enhancement of pension, and that after the receipt of the revised pay statement furnished by the respondent Co-operative Society, the Pension Board has demanded that the respondent Co- operative Society should pay the additional contribution of Rs.13,951/- so as to sanction and disburse the further enhanced pension at the rate of Rs.4,535/- per month in favour of the petitioner, and that the additional contribution has not so far been paid by the respondent Co-operative Society. The counsel for the respondent submits that steps will be taken in that regard immediately."
9. Today, when the matter has been taken up for consideration, Sri.M.Sasindran, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Co-operative Employees Pension Board, would submit on the basis of instructions that pension has been further revised at the rate Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.745 of 2022
- : 10 :-
of Rs.4535/- per month and the necessary pension contribution in that regard has also been received from the respondent Co-operative Society. Now it appears that the main issues regarding the compliance of the directions issued by this Court as per Annexure-
A7 judgment and the consequent steps to be taken thereunder in the matter of revision of pay in the post of Secretary of the Co-operative Society as well as revised pension and arrears of pension have been broadly complied with. Hence, there is no necessity for us to keep this contempt case pending any longer. In case, the petitioner has any further subsequent grievances, it is for him to work out his remedies in the manner known to law.
With these observations and directions and with the said liberty, the above Contempt of Court Case will stand finally disposed of.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE AS APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2019 IN W.P (C) NO. 9808/2019 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. ECS/T/036/19-
20 DATED 13.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.06.2020 IN CON. CASE(C).296/2020 IN W.P (C) NO. 9808/2019 ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY DATED 10.09.2007 ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY PROCEEDING NO.
P.K.D.A/3356/2019 DATED 14.07.2020 ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2021 PASSED IN RP NO. 987/2020 ANNEXURE A7 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 535 OF 2021 DATED 24.03.2021 BY THE HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 15.06.2022 ANNEXURE R1 B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE R1 C COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 16.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR/SECRETARY OF THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD ANNEXURE R1 D COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.7.2022 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE R1 E COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE PENSION BOARD ANNEXURE R1 F COPY OF THE REMITTANCE SLIP DATED 12.7.2022 ISSUED BY THE PENSION BOARD CON.CASE(C) NO.745 OF 2022 ANNEXURE R1 G COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.7.2022 ISSUED TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE R1 H COPY OF LETTER DATED 11.7.2022 ISSUED TO THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR/SECRETARY OF THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD ANNEXURE R1 I COPY OF VOUCHER DATED 12.7.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT SHOWING PAYMENT OF SALARY ARREARS ANNEXURE R1 J COPY OF VOUCHER DATED 12.7.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT SHOWING PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ARREARS ANNEXURE R1 K COPY OF VOUCHER DATED 12.7.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT SHOWING PAYMENT OF LEAVE SURRENDER ARREARS