Kerala High Court
Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, ... vs Velloli Vazhakunnath Anandan @ Vv ... on 28 June, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1946
WA NO. 682 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.9039 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
(ERSTWHILE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
BANK), PBNO 6515 COBANK TOWERS, PALAYAM
THIRUVANATHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIN - 695033
BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS NOS.1 & 2:
1 VELLOLI VAZHAKUNNATH ANANDAN @ VV ANANDAN
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O C.K GOPALAKRISHNAN,
RETIRED DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER IN CHARGE,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,AND RESIDING
AT PALOLI VILLA, VALIYAPARAMBA, DOWNHILL P.O
URAKAM,OORAKAM MELMURI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676519
2 M. ACHUTHANANDAN
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
RETIRED BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE
CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND RESIDING AT MEEMPAT
MANNILTHODI HOUSE.KAVUNGAL BYPASS ROAD,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
3 PREMDAS K
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O GOPI V.M RETIRED SENIOR
MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND
RESIDING AT AJAYA NIVAS, KUNNAPPALLI,
WA.682/2024
2
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
4 SULEKHA O.T
AGED 58 YEARS, W/O HAMZA,
RETIRED SENIOR MANAGER, KERALA STATE
CO-OPERATIVE BANK ,AND RESIDING AT
NEELANCHERI HOUSE,THEKKUMPADE,
KADAMBODE P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676521
5 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
6 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES
PENSION BOARD, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN,
THYKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
BY ADVS.
JAYASREE K.P.
JOHN JOSEPH(K/000875/2019)
SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS - SR.GP.
SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR - FOR R6
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA.682/2024
3
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
The respondents/petitioners had approached this Court
seeking the following reliefs in writ petition:
"i) To call for the records leading to the issuance of
Exhibits P2, P4, P5 and P7 and quash the same to
the extent it has sanctioned only proportionate
pension to the petitioners by issuing a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or
order.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,
direction or order directing the 3rd respondent to
sanction to the petitioners their eligible full pension
together with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum.
iii) Dispense with the filing of the translation of
vernacular documents.
iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable
Court deems fit in this case"
2. The learned Single Bench, considering the
predicament, passed the following interim order on 12.4.2024:
'Taking into consideration of Ext.Nos.P17 and
P20, regarding the contentions raised by the
counsel for the petitioners, the respondent Board
submits that the Bank has not paid the entire
amount demanded for payment of pension. The
petitioners seek a similar relief to that of
Ext.Nos.P17 and P20.
Therefore, there will be an interim direction to
the 2nd respondent to pay the pension due to the
petitioners, provisionally and subject to further
orders in this Writ Petition within a period of one
month from today.
It is also made clear that the Pension Board
will be at liberty to recover the amount due to
them from the Bank for payment of the full
pension"
3. Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd., appellant herein,
is the employer, whereas the Kerala State Co-operative
Employees Pension Board is the disbursing Authority. The
dispute involved is that owing to the coming into force of the
pension scheme, the employer in many cases had been sending
the contribution towards the provident fund and had been in a
spate of litigation with regard to the onward transmission of the
amount by the provident fund to the concerned pensioner. The
counsel representing the Pension Board submitted that the
employer, i.e., the appellant, has not been able to place on
record any material to support whether the amount due or to the
employees had been deposited to the provident fund, enabling
them to take action against them in accordance with law. Even
otherwise, the matter could have been agitated by seeking
modification of the interim order.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners,
submitted that part of the interim order has been complied with.
But the amount has not been disbursed on account of the interim
order passed by the Division Bench, i.e., the second part. We are
of the view that, the appellant had a remedy to seek the
vacation of the order under sub-clause 3 of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Having not done so, they could not have
approached this court in the Intra-Court appeal.
With the aforementioned liberty, writ appeal stands
disposed of. The interim order granted by this Court also stands
vacated.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S., JUDGE
anm
