The State Of Kerala vs The Police Co-Operative Society ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 21974 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                                    &
              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
  WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                         WA NO. 1383 OF 2020
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1726/2020
             DATED 31.01.2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
    1     THE STATE OF KERALA,
          DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY THE
          ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (FINANCE).

    2      THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
           POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.

    3      THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
           PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

    4      THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PALAYAM,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

           BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS


RESPONDENT/S:
          THE POLICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
          NO.T.696, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
           SMT.NISHA GEORGE


    THIS     WRIT     APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP    FOR    ADMISSION   ON
03.11.2021,     THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME      DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 Writ Appeal No.1383 of 2020      -2-




             P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.

                -----------------------------------------------
                   Writ Appeal No.1383 of 2020
                -----------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2021


                              JUDGMENT

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 31.01.2020 in W.P.(C)No.1726 of 2020. Respondents 1 to

4 in the writ petition are the appellants. Parties and documents

are referred to in this judgment for convenience, as they appear

in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society having

police personnel as its members. The petitioner Society is

extending loans to its members. The grievance voiced by the

petitioner in the writ petition is that Ext.P11 letter of the

Government which provides that recovery cannot be effected

from Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) due to employees,

if they object to such recovery, is being misinterpreted by the

official respondents to mean that the same applies even to cases

where the employees had undertaken in writing that the dues

owing to their creditors can be recovered from their DCRG, if the

employees object to such recovery.

3. It is seen that when the matter was taken up, it

was submitted on behalf of the official respondents by the

learned Government Pleader that Ext.P11 cannot be interpreted

in a manner designed to defeat the express written undertaking

executed by the employees to the effect that dues, if any, can be

recovered from their DCRG, referring to Ruling No.1 to Rule 3 of

Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR), which clarifies that

amounts due from the Government employees to their creditors

can be recovered from their DCRG with their consent.

4. Having regard to the submission made on behalf

of the official respondents, and taking note of Ruling No.1 to Rule

3 of Part III KSR, the learned Single Judge closed the writ petition

clarifying the legal position as pointed out by the learned

Government Pleader. This appeal is instituted challenging the

said decision of the learned Single Judge.

5. Heard the learned Government Pleader as also

the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner in the writ

petition.

6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that

the position as regards the applicability of Ext.P11 letter

recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment

is contrary to the decision of this Court in Surendran v.

Mavelikara Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural

Development Bank Ltd., 2005(4) KLT 619.

7. It is seen that the learned Single Judge has not

adjudicated any issues in terms of the impugned judgment.

Instead, the learned Single Judge has only recorded the

clarification made by the learned Government Pleader appearing

for the official respondents in the matter as regards the

applicability of Ext.P11 letter. Now the case of the official

respondents in essence is that the submission made on their

behalf as recorded by this court in the impugned judgment is

incorrect. If that be so, according to us, the official respondents

have to seek review of the judgment and they are not entitled to

prefer an appeal against the same, for the function of the

appellate court is only to examine the correctness of the

adjudication made in the decision impugned, which power cannot

be exercised in the absence of any adjudication.

This writ appeal, in the circumstances, is without

merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

sd/--

C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.

STK