Kerala High Court
Dinesan M vs The State Of Kerala on 19 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.3175 OF 2019(V)
PETITIONER:
DINESAN M, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, MANOLI
HOUSE,VATTOLI.P.O,(VIA)KAKKATTIL,
VADAKARA TALUK,KOZHKKKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673507.
BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.
2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION,
KOZHIKKODE-673001.
4 THE HEADMASTER,
VADAKKUMPAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL PALERI,
PALERI TOWN P.O,VIA KUTTIADY,KOYILANDI TALUK,
PIN-673508.
5 ADDL.R5.CALICUT CITY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAILWAY STATION LINK
ROAD, CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT-673002.
(ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.04.2019 IN
IA NO.1/19 IN W.P.(C) 3175/19).
6 ADDL.R6. CALICUT SERVICE CO OPERATIVE TOWN BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.P.KESAVAMENON ROAD,
KOZHIKODE-1, PIN-673 001.
7 ADDL.R7.KUNNUMMAL BLOCK EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE
SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEVARKOVIL P.O, KUTTIADY(VIA), KOZHIKODE DIST-673 519
WPC 3175/19
2
8 ADDL.R8. KUNNUMMAL AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT CO-OP
SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEVARKOVIL.P.O , KUTTIADY(VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-
673519
9 ADDL.R9.CHANGAROTH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALERI TOWN.P.O,
KUTTIYADY(VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 508.
10 ADDL.R10.PERAMBRA REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERAMBRA.P.O,
KOZHIKODE-673 525.
11 ADDL.R11.VATAKARA TALUK EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
TEACHING AND NON TEACHING EMPLOYEES WELFARE
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
ONTHAM ROAD, OVERBRIDGE, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST-
673 101.
12 ADDL.R12. MALABRAR AGRICULTURIST AND WORKERS
DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEAR GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST-673 104.
13 ADDL.R13. HEALTH AMENITIES MULTIPURPOSE DISTRICT
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THALI,
CHALAPPURAM.P.O, CALICUT-2, PIN-673 002.
(ADDL.R6 TO R13 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
7.11.19 IN IA NO.2/19 IN W.P.(C) 3175/19).
R5 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
R5 BY ADV. SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN
R6 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.HARISH
R11 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL
R12 BY ADV. SRI.C.H.ABDUL RASAC
R12 BY ADV. SRI.U.V.PRADEEPAN
R12 BY ADV. JISHAMOL.M.P
SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 3175/19
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court
stating to be aggrieved by the fact that even
though he had retired as a Lower Grade Sanskrit
Teacher from Vadakkumpad Higher Secondary
School, Paleri, on 31.05.2018, his Death-cum-
Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) has not yet been
disbursed to him.
2. The petitioner says that the only
reason why the 3rd respondent-Deputy Director
of Education (DDE) has withheld his gratuity is
because claims are made by the respondent Co-
operative Societies against him seeking
recovery of certain amounts, but he says that
this is illegal, since he had not given consent
under Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act, so as to enable the creditors-
Banks to recover any amounts from his DCRG. He
asserts that as per GO(P)No.P5/60600/2014/DPI,
dated 10.06.2016, the Director of Public
WPC 3175/19
Instructions (now called the Director of
General Education) has stipulated that consent
of an employee is necessary for recovery from
DCRG of non-Governmental dues. He reiteratingly
submits that he has given no such consent and
therefore, that the action of the 3rd
respondent in withholding his DCRG is illegal
and unlawful.
3. In response, the learned Standing
Counsel for the 6th respondent-Sri.B.S.Swathi
Kumar, submitted that the assertions of the
petitioner are completely untrue and that he
has given consent to the effect that the amount
due to his client can be recovered from his
DCRG. He submitted that his client will be able
to produce the consent before the 3rd
respondent, if given such an opportunity.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the
other respondents also say that large amounts
are due from the petitioner and that they are
WPC 3175/19
entitled to recover it from his DCRG on account
of the fact that he has given consent for such
action. They, therefore, prayed that this Writ
Petition be dismissed.
5. When I consider the afore submissions,
it is ineluctable that the sole question that
arises in this case is whether the petitioner's
DCRG can be withheld and paid to the respondent
Co-operative Societies by the 3rd respondent,
as per the provisions of the applicable Act and
Rules. Going by the provisions of the Kerala
Co-operative Societies Act, and in particular
Section 37 thereof, it is only if the
petitioner had given a consent that his DCRG
can be adjusted against the liabilities or
other non-governmental dues, can the 3rd
respondent withhold the same and effect such
payment. Obviously, therefore, what is relevant
is to verify whether such a consent had been
given by the petitioner in the case of the
WPC 3175/19
respondent Co-operative Societies.
6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that
the 3rd respondent must now hear the
petitioner, as also the authorised
representatives of the Co-operative Societies
and take a decision as to whether his DCRG can
be withheld or paid to the respondent Societies
in terms of the Kerala Co-operative Societies
Act and Rules.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition
and direct the 3rd respondent to hear the
petitioner and the authorised representatives
of the respondent Co-operative Societies at 11
a.m. on 29.01.2021 - on which day, the
Societies will be at liberty to produce all the
documents in substantiation of their plea that
they are eligible to recover and adjust the
dues from the DCRG of the petitioner thus
leading to an appropriate order thereafter as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later
WPC 3175/19
than one month after the hearing is completed.
It is needless to say that for the afore
purpose the petitioner and the representatives
of the respondent Banks/Societies shall mark
appearance at 11 a.m. before the 3 rd respondent
and if, for any reason, the said respondent has
any inconvenience to hear them on that day,
another date will be fixed for such purpose.
It is further made clear that I have not
considered the merits of the factual assertions
of the rival sides in this judgment and that it
is fully left open to the 3 rd respondent to
take an appropriate decision as per law in
terms of the afore directions.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 3175/19
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT
ISSUED BY INDIAN AUDIT AND
ACCOUNTANT DEPARTMENT DATED
19.06.2018
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
10.6.16.
RESPONDENTS' EXTS:
ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LIABILITY PENDING
IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER WITH
RESPECT TO VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS
