N. Somasundaran vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 654 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 654 Ker
Judgement Date : 14 January, 2022

Kerala High Court

N. Somasundaran vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2022

WP(C) NO. 1319 OF 2022             1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
     FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 24TH POUSHA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 1319 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

             N. SOMASUNDARAN
             (RETIRED SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-
             OPERATIVE BANK LTD.), ANGADIYIL HOUSE, PALAPPURAM P.
             O., OTTAPPALAM 3, PALAKKAD - 679 103.

             BY ADVS.
             M.M.MONAYE
             M.PAUL VARGHESE



RESPONDENTS:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-
             OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

     2       REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
             DPI JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014.

     3       THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
             CO-BANK TOWERS, PALAYAM,

             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS
             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

     4       GENERAL MANAGER
             KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REGIONAL
             OFFICE, PALAKKAD, HPO ROAD, SULTHANPETT, PALAKKAD -
             678001.

             SRI GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA, SC


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   14.01.2022,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 1319 OF 2022                2



                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner while working as Senior Branch Manager/Executive

Officer in the Palakkad District Co-operative Bank attained superannuation on

30.06.2021. He asserts that the Palakkad District Co-operative Bank

amalgamated with the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. The grievance of

the petitioner is that respondents 3 and 4 have not disbursed the gratuity, the

Provident Fund and other benefits due to the petitioner. He contends that

claiming benefits due to the petitioner he has preferred Ext.P1 representation

before the 3rd respondent. The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to

the 3rd respondent to take up Ext.P1 and take a decision within a timeframe

with due notice.

2. Sri.M.M.Monaye, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied if 3rd

respondent is directed to consider and pass orders in Ext.P1 representation.

3. Sri.Gilbert George Correya, the learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that there cannot be any

impediment in considering the request.

4. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and

circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by

issuing the following directions:

a) There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to take up, consider

and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1, after affording an

opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the

petitioner herein or his authorised representative.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any

event, within a period of one month from the date of production

of a copy of this judgment.

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ

petition along with the judgment before the concerned

respondent for further action.