Mathew M J vs Managing Committee Of Kelakam ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7135 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 15956 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            MATHEW M J., MADAPALLIKUNEL HOUSE,
            KELAKAM P.O.KANNUR-670 674

            BY ADV P.N.MOHANAN



RESPONDENTS:

    1       MANAGING COMMITTEE OF KELAKAM MILK PRODUCERS' CO-
            OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.C.180 (D), REPRESENTED BY ITS
            PRESIDENT, KELAKAM P.O., KANNUR-670 674

    2       THE KELAKAM MILK PRODUCERS' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
            NO.C.180 (D), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KELAKAM
            P.O., KANNUR-670 674

    3       KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES' PENSION BOARD,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA
            BHAVAN, 7TH FLOOR, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD P.O.,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014

    4       DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
            DIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, KANNUR-670 001

            ANOOP JOSEPH
            M.SASINDRAN
            K.B.ARUNKUMAR
            ZERENE LINDA MITCHEL
            ASWANI THUVVAKKADAN
            PAUL P. ABRAHAM

            SRI JOSHY THANNICKKAMATTAM-GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15956 OF 2022
                                     2


                                 JUDGMENT

All that the petitioner requires in this case is a direction

to the first respondent to implement Exts.P1 and P2 Pay

Revisions and make available the eligible benefits to him,

without any further delay.

2. The afore request of the petitioner, as made by his

learned counsel Sri.P.N.Mohanan, was responded to by

Sri.K.B.Arun Kumar - learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2,

submitting that the petitioner had earlier approached the

District Legal Service Authority, Kannur and the said dispute

was settled through conciliation, as is evident from Ext.R2(b),

resultant to which the petitioner withdrew his complaint

through R2(c). He argued that, therefore, the petitioner

cannot seek any further amounts than what has been already

paid to him, because he was given the benefit of much higher

Dearness Allowance, than what was entitled; and therefore,

that if Exts.P1 and P2 are to be now implemented, it may even

cause detriment to him. The learned counsel, therefore,

prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

3. Sri.M.Sasindran, learned standing counsel for the

Pension Board, submitted that the petitioner has already been WP(C) NO. 15956 OF 2022

sanctioned pension, based on the contribution made by the

Society and therefore, that his client has nothing to offer in

answer to the various issues impelled by him which is between

him and the Society.

4. The learned Government Pleader, Sri.Joshy

Thannickamattom, added that the disputes projected in this

writ petition appear to be between the petitioner and the

Society and therefore, that the fourth respondent does not

obtain any role to play at this stage. He added that, however,

if this Court is so inclined, the said Authority can initiate

appropriate action under the Statutory scheme.

5. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is evident

that, on one hand, the petitioner says that Exts.P1 and P2 Pay

Revisions have not been yet implemented; while, on the other,

the Society says that he has been given much more than what

was entitled to him under the said Schemes, because the

Dearness Allowance was escalated.

6. Be that as it may, legally, the Society is bound to

implement the Pay Revisions, unless there are orders or

Circulars which exempt them from doing so. I am not aware

of any such exemption being offered, though Sri.K.B.Arun

Kumar says that there are certain proceedings to the effect WP(C) NO. 15956 OF 2022

that his client need not implement these Pay Revisions.

7. I am, therefore, of the firm view that this matter

should be considered by the competent Authority of the first

respondent immediately, leading to an appropriate order, after

hearing the petitioner. On such proceedings being issued, if

any amounts are found due to the petitioner, the same shall be

disbursed without any further delay; but, on the contrary, if

they are to reject the petitioner's claim, then he will be at

liberty to invoke his remedies before the fourth respondent or

any other Forum under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act

and Rules, for which purpose, all his contentions are left open.

8. At this time, Sri.P.N.Mohanan intervened to make an

adscititious plea that the Pension Board be directed to

consider the additional contribution made by the Bank, as is

evident through Ext.R2(e).

9. If, as stated by Sri.P.N.Mohanan, additional amounts

have already been paid by the Bank to the Pension Board

through Ext.R2(e), certainly, its competent Authority must

consider revision of the petitioner's pension; and I, therefore,

direct the third respondent to consider the same again, after

hearing the petitioner, thus culminating in an appropriate

order thereon, within a period of two months from the date WP(C) NO. 15956 OF 2022

of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It goes without saying

that all eligible amounts shall be disbursed, along with its

arrears, without any avoidable delay thereafter.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 15956 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15956/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO (P) NO.2/2016 DATED 14.01.2016 OF THE AGRICULTURAL (DAIRY DEVELOPMENT) DEPARTMENT

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO (P) NO.11/2021 DATED 26.02.2021 OF THE AGRICULTURAL (DAIRY DEVELOPMENT) DEPARTMENT

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT DATED 16.08.2010 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DATED 20.11.2021 OF THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2022 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AS REPORTED IN 2012 (3) KHC 518 (DB)

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.2.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, KANNUR NUMBERED AS P.L.P. 1685/2020

Exhibit R2 B TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE CONCILIATION MEETING HELD ON 22/7/2020

Exhibit R2 C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29-7-20 ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF THE REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT.

Exhibit R2 D TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE PENSION BOARD.

Exhibit R2E TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 8.11.2021 EVIDENCING PAYMENT IN COMPLIANCE OF DEMAND WP(C) NO. 15956 OF 2022

NOTICE.

Exhibit R2 F TABULATED STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT ENTITLED AS PER EXHIBIT P1 AND P2 G.O.s AND THE AMOUNT DISPERSED TO THE PETITIONER WITHOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF G.O.S