Kerala High Court
Dency C.A vs The Joint Registrar (General) on 4 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.37838 OF 2015(D)
PETITIONERS:
1 DENCY C.A.
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O.BIJU JOSE,
CHERPANATH HOUSE,
ANNANAD - 680309 CHALAKUDY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
(TYPIST-CUM-CLERK-COMPUTER OPERATOR KADUKUTTY SERVICE
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.628 KADUKUTTY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT)
2 K.C.MANI
S/O.CHATHAN,
KOOTTALA HOUSE,
KULAYIDAM,
CHERUVALLOOR P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
(INTERNAL AUDITOR KADUKUTTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD. NO.628 KADUKUTTY P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT).
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
SRI.E.S.ASHRAF
SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR,
THRISSUR - 680001.
2 KADUKUTTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
NO.628 KADUKUTTY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 680 315.
3 ADDL.R3.RATHI.T.S.
SENIOR CLERK, KADUKUTTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD.. NO.628,
KADUKUTTY P.O.,
THRISSUR.
WP(C).No.37838 OF 2015(D)
2
4 ADDL.R4.LUXI SIMETHY,
HEAD CLERK,
KADUKUTTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.628
KADUKUTTY P.O., THRISSUR.
5 ADDL.R5.A SREENIVASAN,
SENIOR CLERK,
KADUKUTTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 628,
KADUKUTTY P.O., THRISSUR.
(ADDL.R3 TO R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
22.03.2016 IN IA 2928/2016.
R1 - BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R2 - BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN
BY ADV. SRI.M.P.PRABHAKARAN PALAKKAD
R3-R5 BY ADV. BRIJESH MOHAN
BY ADV. RESMI.G.NAIR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.37838 OF 2015(D)
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of February 2021
Petitioners are the employees of 2nd respondent ie.,
Kadukutty Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. 1 St petitioner was
employed with effect from 2000 on daily wage basis as Typist-
Clerk/Computer Operator. Government vide order dated
24.01.2011 directed to regularise the service of the 1 st petitioner
as Typist/Data Entry Operator and an appointment order dated
02.07.2011 in this regard was issued. Accordingly, the 1 st
petitioner joined on 04.07.2011 on regular basis.
2. The 2nd petitioner joined as a Peon on 20.11.1999 and
later he was promoted as Internal Auditor with effect from
01.04.2012.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that while discharging their duties, the petitioners were
flabbergasted to notice resolution of the Bank Ext.P1 whereby on
the basis of an audit objection, it has been pointed out that the
WP(C).No.37838 OF 2015(D)
2nd petitioner could not have been promoted as Internal Auditor
in the absence of degree, whereas, the 1 st petitioner had not
completed 3 years of service and therefore, the promotion given
to her as Senior Clerk was not proper and steps to seek recovery
was contemplated by Secretary of the Bank.
4. In response to the aforementioned contentions and the
grounds, respondents 3 to 5 filed a joint counter affidavit and
raised the objection qua maintainability of the writ petition in
view of the provisions of Section 69(2)(d) and also submitted that
the writ petition is premature as it is based upon a show cause
notice. Petitioners would have the remedy of replying to the
show cause notice by taking all the grounds as have been taken
in the present writ petition and urged this Court for dismissal of
this writ petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
appraised the paper book. Section 69(2)(d) of the Co-operative
Societies Act, 1969 as well as the contents of Ext.P1 read thus:
"Section 69(2)(d) any dispute arising in connection with
employment of officers and servants of the different classes of
societies specified in sub-section (1) of section 80, including
WP(C).No.37838 OF 2015(D)
their promotion and inter se seniority."
Ext.P1
"KADUKUTTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.628
KADUKUTY.P.O.-680315, BRANCH-PALAYAMPARAMBU,
CHERUVALOOR, KALLUR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution No.(9) dated 27/11/15 Date:30/11/2015
The matter regarding discrepancies in the Test Audit of the
society for the year 2014-2015 was discussed in the meeting of
the Managing Committee held on 27/11/2015. It is decided to
circulate the same among the concerned members of the staff.
Audit objection - PRRTA
1. It is seen that as per item No.13 of the resolution of the
Managing Committee held on 12/10/2012, Sri.Mani.K.C.
has been promoted as Internal Auditor, though he did not
have a degree qualification. Being the Bank which is under
Class-I category w.e.f. 1/4/2012, the above promotion
granted is against the Act. The matter is to be thoroughly
examined and consequential remedial measures taken
before the next audit.
2. Being a Class-I category Bank, the promotion given to
Smt.Delcy.C.A. Typist as Senior Clerk w.e.f. 16/10/2012 is
not proper as she has not completed 3 years service after
her joining the bank on 4/7/2011.
It is ordered to recover the excess payment made to the above
employees with interest, which shall be done before the next
audit.
Sd/- Secretary"
WP(C).No.37838 OF 2015(D)
6. On plain and simple reading of Ext.P1 it is only an
intention to cause the recovery not with regard to the reversion
as envisioned. I am of the view that the writ petition is premature
all pleas taken in the writ petition, could have been taken by filing
categoric reply, even with regard to recovery, if the promotions
were made on account of certain flaws or any deviation from
Rules.
7. This Court while issuing notice to the respondents
suspended the operation of Ext.P1 which is still continuing. In the
order dated 19.05.2019 this Court clarified that the pendency of
the writ petition would not stand in the way of the authorities in
considering Ext.P5 wherein a request was made for relaxation of
educational qualification.
Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition by directing the
petitioners to take the plea made in Ext.P5 before the
competent authority by filing a specific reply, with all the
grounds as has been taken in the present writ petition. They
are also at liberty to submit the judgments in their support and
the Society shall take a decision as expeditiously possible
within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this
WP(C).No.37838 OF 2015(D)
judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing in
accordance with law. Till such time the order staying recovery
shall continue. It is made clear that once a decision is taken, if
affected, the petitioners shall be at liberty to assail the same in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
nak
WP(C).No.37838 OF 2015(D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION
PASSED BY THE SOCIETY DATED 27.11.2015
ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT P2 EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT
FEEDER CATEGORY RULE OF THE SOCIETY
DATED 11.8.2008 APPROVED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT WITH ITS ENGLISH
TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT P3 EXT.P-3: TRUE FEEDER CATEGORY APPROVAL
ORDER DATED 19.10.2013 ALONG WITH THE
FEEDER CATEGORY RULES WITH ITS ENGLISH
TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT P4 EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.54/82 WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
