Valsala P vs Alappuzha Government Servants ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11305 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 36485 OF 2022


PETITIONER:

          VALSALA P., CHIEF ACCOUNTANT (RETD),
          ALAPPUZHA GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK
          LTD. NO.A 208, COLLECTORATE JUNCTION, ALAPPUZHA,
          RESIDING AT PUTHENVELIYIL, PUNNAPRA P.O,
          AALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688004

          BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     ALAPPUZHA GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK
          LTD. NO.A 208, COLLECTORATE JUNCTION, ALAPPUZHA,-688
          524, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN - 688524

    2     JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL)
          OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
          SOCIETIES, CHERTHALA, PIN - 688524

    3     STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
          GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
          TRIVANDRUM-695001, PIN - 695001

    4     THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
          KOTTAYAM DIVISION, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER., PIN - 686001

          BY ADVS.
          M.SASINDRAN
          S.EASWARAN, SC,
          THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 36485/22
                                     2

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to

the respondents to disburse to her the balance amount towards

gratuity with interest.

2. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan - learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that his client has been paid only Rs.20 lakhs and that

too, being the amounts paid to the Society by the Life Insurance

Corporation of India (LIC) under a Group Gratuity Scheme. He

asserted that law has been now well settled by a Full Bench of

this Court in Chandrasekharan Nair v. Kerala State Co-operative

Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. [2017 (4) KLT

276] that if better terms are available to the Society, either

under the Payment of Gratuity Act, or under Rule 59 of the

Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as

'KCS Rules for short), same will necessary have to be honoured

by the Society.

3. Sri.M.Sasindran - learned Standing Counsel for the

Society, however, submitted that this Writ Petition has been filed WPC 36485/22

on an experimental basis by the petitioner, after having received

eligible amounts. He argued that amounts due to the petitioner

at the time when she became eligible to gratuity have been

honoured and that subsequent amendments would not be

applicable to her.

4. Sri.S.Easwaran - learned Standing Counsel for the 4th

respondent - LIC, submitted that the amounts due to the Society

and eligible to the petitioner have already been paid by his

client and therefore, prayed that no further orders be issued

against them.

5. When I evaluate and consider the afore submissions, it

is indubitable that law has been now well settled that, what is

important to see is whether the retired employees are entitled for

better terms - either under the Group Gratuity Scheme, or the

Payment of Gratuity Act, or Rule 59 of the KCS Rules. An

enquiry in this regard will necessarily have to be taken into

account as per the Bylaws/Regulations of the Society, and the

manner in which the provisions for Payment of Gratuity are

ingrained therein.

WPC 36485/22

6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that, in the light of

Chandrasekharan Nair (supra), the entire matter will require to

be reconsidered by the Society after hearing the petitioner.

Accordingly, I allow this Writ Petition with a consequential

direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the claims of the

petitioner, adverting to their Bylaws/Regulations and verify

whether any better terms are available to the petitioner under

the same or the Statutory Scheme.

The resultant order in this regard shall be issued by the 1 st

respondent as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and

all eligible amounts thus found shall be disbursed to the

petitioner within a period of three months thereafter.

Sd/-

RR                                       DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                               JUDGE
 WPC 36485/22


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36485/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          EXHIBIT P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM
                    FORM FOR THE GROUP GRATUITY CASH
                    ACCUMULATION PLAN DATED 11/2/2022
                    SUBMITTED BY THE BANK
Exhibit P2          EXHIBIT P2:- THE TRUE COPY OF THE SB
                    LEDGER STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST
                    RESPONDENT BANK
Exhibit P3          EXHIBIT P3:- THE TRUE COPY OF THE
                    JUDGMENT DATED 30/7/2018 IN W.P(C)
                    NO.12589/2018