T.N.Sivasankaran vs A.Sheeba
2022 Latest Caselaw 9581 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                                  &
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
  THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
                  CON.CASE(C) NO. 2176 OF 2018
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWA 2182/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                KERALA
PETITIONER/S:

            T.N.SIVASANKARANM, AGED 63 YEARS
            S/O.K.RAMUNNIKUTTY NAIR, KAILASAM, K.PURAM,
            THANALOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
            BY ADVS.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
            SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA; SRI.BALU TOM

RESPONDENT/S:

    1       A.SHEEBA,
            W/O.DAMODARAN, (AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),
            SECRETARY, TIRUR CO OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND
            RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO. II, TIRUR 676101
    2       ABDU RAHIMAN @ MANI,
            AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
            PETITIONER, PRESIDENT, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
            TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL
            DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO.II,TIRUR-676101.
            BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR &
            SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN



     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION    ON   25.08.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                         :2:
Con. Case (C) No. 2176 of 2018


                              A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                                                      &
                                  MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ
                         ............................................................

                                 Con. Case (C) No. 2176 of 2018

                         ..................................................................

                          Dated this the 25th day of August, 2022


                                               JUDGMENT

Mohammed Nias.C.P.J.,

The above Contempt of Court Case (Civil) is filed alleging non-

compliance of the directions of this Court dated 5-7-2018 in Writ Appeal No.

2182 of 2015. The said judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court

and by the Order dated, 19-11-2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 1968 - 1969 of 2019,

the Judgment of the Division Bench was modified and the direction of the

learned Single Judge for payment of back-wages quantified at 25% was

restored. The petitioner had filed an affidavit on 3-6-2019 stating that a total

amount of Rs. 20,71,482/- is due from the respondent and the amount which

he received as subsistence allowance was Rs. 5,03,570/-

2. The respondent had filed a statement on 13-08-2022 stating that

the petitioner is entitled to be paid Rs. 15,32,280/-. We feel, on a perusal of

the claims made that the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 15,32,280/- and there

will be a direction to the respondents to disburse the same forthwith.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also argues that the

petitioner was entitled to promotion had he continued in service. He argues

that the Co-operative Arbitration Court by its order dated 6-2-2012, had

Con. Case (C) No. 2176 of 2018

decreed the suit with a direction to re-instate the petitioner with all the service

benefits including back-wages. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the

petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the promotion that was due to him

and this is evident from Annexure-A9 issued by the Bank as early as on

16-6-2008, which states that the petitioner's case for promotion would be

considered subject to regularisation of the suspension. Therefore, it is his

contention that the proceedings having been completed and finally

adjudicated by the courts, the respondents should disburse the consequential

benefits of promotion.

3. We feel that the said question is to be considered by the Bank in the

first instance. We, prima facie feel that the contention of the petitioner has

to be accepted in view of the directions of the Arbitration Court as well as the

banks own stand in Annexure-A9. It should be considered by the Bank and

consequential benefits disbursed to the petitioner without any further delay.

This Contempt of Court Case (Civil) is accordingly closed.

Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE ani/

/true copy/

Con. Case (C) No. 2176 of 2018

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 2176/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A12 Copy of the award in ARC 55/2011 of the Co-operative Arbitration Court (Northern), Kozhikode dated 06.02.2012.

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.

2182/2015 DATED 05.7.2018.

ANNEXURE A2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 19.7.2018 BY REGISTERED POST.

ANNEXURE A3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT. ANNEXURE A4 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT.