Kerala High Court
V Raveendran vs A Binu on 17 June, 2022
Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 1 / 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
Friday, the 17th day of June 2022 / 27th Jyaishta, 1944
CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 745 OF 2022(S) IN WA 535/2021
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
V RAVEENDRAN, AGED 61 YEARS,
TC 36/685, SAMKARAMANGALAM EENJAKKAL,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 008
BY ADVOCATES SRI. ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ALONG WITH M/S.
SAIJO HASSAN,BENOJ C AUGUSTIN, P.PARVATHY, AATHIRA SUNNY.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
A BINU, SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXCISE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES CO- OPERATIVE
SOCIETY,
T 1068, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001
BY ADVOCATES M/S. SADCHITH P.KURUP, C.P.ANIL RAJ FOR RESPONDENT
SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (CO-OPERATION)
SRI.M. SASINDRAN, STANDING COUNSEL, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES
PENSION BOARD
This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
17.06.2022, the court on the same day passed the following:
P.T.O.
Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 2 / 11
ALEXANDER THOMAS & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
Cont.Case (C) No. 745 of 2022
[arising out of the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2021
in WA No.535/2021]
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022
ORDER
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 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
Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 3 / 11
CO(C) No.745/2022
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
Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 4 / 11
CO(C) No.745/2022
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 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
Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 5 / 11
CO(C) No.745/2022
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
Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 6 / 11
CO(C) No.745/2022
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
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
Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 7 / 11
CO(C) No.745/2022
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
Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 8 / 11
CO(C) No.745/2022
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 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
Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 9 / 11
CO(C) No.745/2022
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
Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 10 / 11
CO(C) No.745/2022
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, learned Special Government
Pleader (Co-operation) in the cause list.
List the case on 07.07.2022 at 10.15 am.
Hand Over to all the Advocates concerned.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
17-06-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
Con.Case(C) No.745/2022 11 / 11
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 745/2022
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 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
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RP NO.987/2020 DATED 14.01.2021.
EXHIBIT P4 IN W.P.(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
NO. 9808/2019 23.1.2018
