Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 1 / 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
Friday, the 17th day of June 2022 / 27th Jyaishta, 1944
CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 745 OF 2022(S) IN WA 535/2021
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
V RAVEENDRAN, AGED 61 YEARS,
TC 36/685, SAMKARAMANGALAM EENJAKKAL,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 008
BY ADVOCATES SRI. ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ALONG WITH M/S.
SAIJO HASSAN,BENOJ C AUGUSTIN, P.PARVATHY, AATHIRA SUNNY.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
A BINU, SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXCISE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES CO- OPERATIVE
SOCIETY,
T 1068, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001
BY ADVOCATES M/S. SADCHITH P.KURUP, C.P.ANIL RAJ FOR RESPONDENT
SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (CO-OPERATION)
SRI.M. SASINDRAN, STANDING COUNSEL, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES
PENSION BOARD
This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
17.06.2022, the court on the same day passed the following:
P.T.O.
Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 2 / 11
ALEXANDER THOMAS & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
Cont.Case (C) No. 745 of 2022
[arising out of the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2021
in WA No.535/2021]
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022
ORDER
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 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 Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 3 / 11 CO(C) No.745/2022 2 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 Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 4 / 11 CO(C) No.745/2022 3 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 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 Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 5 / 11 CO(C) No.745/2022 4 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 Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 6 / 11 CO(C) No.745/2022 5 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 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 Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 7 / 11 CO(C) No.745/2022 6 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 Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 8 / 11 CO(C) No.745/2022 7 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 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 Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 9 / 11 CO(C) No.745/2022 8 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 Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 10 / 11 CO(C) No.745/2022 9 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, learned Special Government Pleader (Co-operation) in the cause list.
List the case on 07.07.2022 at 10.15 am.
Hand Over to all the Advocates concerned.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/-
17-06-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 11 / 11
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 745/2022
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 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 AGAINST THE ORDER IN RP NO.987/2020 DATED 14.01.2021.
EXHIBIT P4 IN W.P.(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NO. 9808/2019 23.1.2018