Kerala High Court
V Raveendran vs A Binu on 10 August, 2022
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
