[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd vs Santhosh Kumar S on 19 February, 2026
W.A.No.89 of 2024
: 1 :-
2026:KER:13918
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947
WA NO. 89 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2023 IN WP(C) NO.37932
OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS:
1 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
P.B. NO. 6515, COBANK TOWERS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., P.B. NO. 6515,
COBANK TOWERS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695033., PIN - 695003
BY ADV SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA
RESPONDENTS:
1 SANTHOSH KUMAR S.,
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. SADASIVAN M., AGED 59 YEARS, SENIOR MANAGER
(RETD.), KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, RESIDING
AT KOCHUTHARAYIL HOUSE, PATTOMTHURUTHU P.O.,
PERINAD VIA, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691601.
2 SANTHOSH KUMAR C.R.,
S/O. RAGHAVAN C.M., AGED 59 YEARS, SENIOR MANAGER,
(RETD.) KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, RESIDING AT
CHOKKATHUPARAMBIL, POOVARANY P.O., KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT - 686 577.
3 G. GOPAKUMAR,
S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR G., AGED 59 YEA DEPUTY
GENERAL MANAGER (RETD.), KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK, RESIDING AT NALUKETTU, KILICHETTAN LANE,
SANKAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
W.A.No.89 of 2024
: 2 :-
2026:KER:13918
695016.
4 RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI R.,
S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLA S., AGED 59 YEARS, ASSISTANT
GENERAL MANAGER (RETD.) KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK, RESIDING AT SHREE, KRWA, 242 F, KUTHIRAKAD
LANE, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695013.
5 RADHAKUMARI AMMA.S.K.,
AGED 62 YEARS
D/O.KESAVAN NAIR, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (RETD.)
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, RESIDING AT
KAIRALI, AMRITHA NAGAR, KAJMANAM, PAPPANAMCODE
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695018.
6 P. VISWANATHAN,
S/O. SIVASANKARAN NAIR, AGED 62 YEARS, DEPUTY
GENERAL MANAGER (RETD.), KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK, RESIDING AT 32/196, ARUNODHAYAM, HOUSE NO.
52, STREET NO. 4, DARSANA NAGAR, VENKKARA, NOORANI,
PALAKKAD - 678004.
7 MAYADEVI S.,
D/O. PRABHAKARAN NAIR B., AGED 59 YEARS, TYPIST
GRADE-I (RETD.) KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
RESIDING AT KRISHNA, T.C.84/1388, DESRA-56,
PERUNTHANNI, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
- 695008.
8 SREEKUMAR K.,
S/O. KUNJUKRISHNA KURUP, AGED 62 YEARS, DEPUTY
GENERAL MANAGER (RETD.), KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK, RESIDING AT UTHRADAM, A.34, MADANKOVIL LANE,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695010., PIN -
685010
9 RAJAN C.G.,
S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 62 YEARS, DEPUTY
GENERAL MANAGER (RETD.), KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK, RESIDING AT GREESHMAM, VNRA A-14,
MANNAMKONAM, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
- 695013.
0 PILLAI GEETHA G. JANARDHAN,
D/O. JANARDHANAN, AGED 62 YEARS, MANAGER (RETD.)
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, RESIDING AT KSHB
APARTMENT, FLAT NO. 301, EMS NAGAR, PATTOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695035., PIN - 695053
11 K.B. ROY,
S/O. BALAN, AGED 59 YEARS, SENIOR MANAGER (RETD.)
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, RESIDING AT PYARY
LAND, MALAYALAPPUZHA, THAZHAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA
- 689666.
W.A.No.89 of 2024
: 3 :-
2026:KER:13918
12 PAVITHRAN K.P.,
S/O RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR C.V., AGED 59 YEARS, SENIOR
MANAGER (RETD.) KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
RESIDING AT CHALIL HOUSE, THILLANKERY P.O.
MATTANNOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670702.
13 VIMALADEVI AMMA S.,
D/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS, SENIOR
MANAGER (RETD.) KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
RESIDING AT SUDARSANAM, KIDANGAYAM NADUVIL PATHARAM
P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690567.
14 ANILKUMAR M.G.,
S/O. GOVINDA PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS, SENIOR MANAGER
(RETD.), KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, RESIDING
AT GOVINDAMANGALAM, INCHAKKADU, KAKKAKKUNNU P.O.,
KOLLAM - 690522.
15 JOSE JOHN,
S/O. JOHN, AGED 59 YEARS, SENIOR MANAGER (RETD.),
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, RESIDING AT
MUNDAKKATHARAPPEL HOUSE, VELLAD P.O., ALAKKODE,
KANNUR - 670571.
16 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
17 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
ADV.ANSHIM K.K.
ADV.P.A.HARISH (SR.G.P.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.02.2026, THE COURT ON 19.2.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.89 of 2024
: 4 :-
2026:KER:13918
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------
W.A. No. 89 of 2024
---------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February 2026
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J
This intra-court appeal is filed by respondents 1 and 4 in W.P.
(C)No.37932/2022, challenging the judgment dated 26.10.2023,
passed by the learned single judge, allowing the writ petition filed
by respondents 1 to 15 herein.
2. Respondents 1 to 15 herein/writ petitioners are the retired
employees of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Bank' for short). Respondents 1 to 15 have
rendered more than 20 years of service and they are aggrieved by
the non-disbursement of their eligible higher gratuity, in terms of
Appendix IV of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Staff
Regulations(hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations'). At the
time of joining, respondents 1 to 15 had signed a declaration
stating that they are agreeing for gratuity equal to one months' pay
for every year of service, subject to a maximum of 15 months' pay.
Even though respondents 1 to 15 were eligible to a higher gratuity
: 5 :-
2026:KER:13918
as per the Regulations, all of them were paid only Rs. 20 Lakhs.
Since, respondents 1 to 15 were eligible to receive better terms of
gratuity as per the Regulations, they submitted Exts.P2 to P16
representations respectively, before the Bank claiming higher
gratuity. But the Bank took no action in the representations
submitted by respondents 1 to 15. Hence, respondents 1 to 15 filed
the afore writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1 st
respondent Bank to disburse the balance eligible
higher gratuity amount to the petitioners.
ii) For a declaration that the proviso (iii) to Rule
59 of the KCS Rule is not applicable to the
employees who have signed Exhibit P1 declaration."
3. The learned single judge, after considering the materials on
record and hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition and
directed the appellants to disburse the balance eligible gratuity to
respondents 1 to 15, within a period of three months.
4. Heard Adv.Gilbert George Correya, the learned counsel for
the appellants and Adv.Anshim K.K., the learned counsel appearing
for the party respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all
the party respondents were paid Rs.20 Lakhs on their retirement,
as per their entitlement under Section 4(3) of the Payment of
: 6 :-
2026:KER:13918
Gratuity Act, 1972. He, by relying on Ext.R1, submitted that the
Bank has restricted the amount of gratuity payable to the
employees, as Rs 20 Lakhs and respondents 1 to 15, who are well
aware of the same, has accepted the said amount without any
protest. He contended that the Regulations relied on by the party
respondents was prior to the enactment of the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act and after the enactment, it is the provision of the said
Act which becomes the enabling provision for payment of gratuity.
He further submitted that since the Regulations runs contrary to
Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the same is not
binding on the Bank and the Bank is only liable to pay the amount
as prescribed in the Rules. He argued that as per Section 13A of
the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, any bye laws inconsistent or
contrary to the provisions of the Act or Rules cannot survive and
therefore, the Regulations are of no avail to the party respondents.
He contended that Ext.P1 is only a declaration contained in the
Staff Regulations of the Bank and the same cannot be interpreted
as an agreement for claiming more amount as gratuity.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the party respondents
supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are no
grounds to interfere with the same. He argued that as per the Full
: 7 :-
2026:KER:13918
Court decision of this Court in Chandrasekharan Nair G. and
Others v. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural
Development Bank Ltd. and Others [2017(5) KHC 15], the
employees are entitled for better gratuity amount, if they are
covered by an award, agreement or contract and that Ext.P1 is one
such agreement. He submitted that as per Ext.P1 agreement, the
employees are entitled to gratuity as per the Regulations, which
confer better benefits to them.
7. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that respondents 1
to 15/writ petitioners have, at the time of their retirement, received
an amount of Rs.20 Lakhs as gratuity, which is the amount
prescribed under Section 4 (3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Now
the prime question to be considered is whether Ext.P1 is an
agreement or contract between the employer and the employee,
providing better terms of gratuity falling within the ambit of Section
4 (5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Section 4 (5) of the Payment
of Gratuity Act reads as follows:
"(5) Nothing in this section shall affect the right
of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity
under any award or agreement or contract with the
employer."
A Full Bench of this Court in Chandrasekharan's case, (cited
supra), has held that if there is any award, agreement or contract
: 8 :-
2026:KER:13918
between the employer and employee to receive better terms of
gratuity, the same will fall within the ambit of Section 4 (5) of the
Payment of Gratuity Act and that the employee will be entitled for
that enhanced benefit. Going by Ext.P1, it can, without any
ambiguity, be stated that it is nothing, but an agreement entered
into by the bank and the employees, whereby the employees have
subscribed and agreed to be bound by the Regulations. It is not in
dispute that Appendix IV of the Regulations speaks about the
payment of gratuity to the employees and it also mentions as to
how the same has to be calculated. It is also not in dispute that if
the amount is calculated as per the Appendix IV of the Regulations,
respondents 1 to 15 will be entitled to more than Rs.20 Lakhs each
as gratuity. If so, applying the dictum in Chandrasekharan's case
(cited supra), we have no hesitation to hold that respondents 1 to
15 will be entitled for gratuity as per the terms and conditions
stated in the Regulations. At this juncture, we will take note of the
fact that a learned single judge of this court, as early as on
07.12.2013, in W.P.(C) No.27507/2013 (C.K.Sasikumar &
Others v. Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd) has also
considered the very same issue and has answered it in the afore
lines, rightly.
: 9 :-
2026:KER:13918
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, by
relying on Ext.R1, has no legs to stand since, it only speaks about
the modalities in implementing the LIC Group Gratuity Scheme and
has nothing to do with the issue in hand. Similarly, the contention
of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the Regulations runs
counter to Rule 59 of the Kerala State Co-operative Rules, also
cannot be accepted since, the Regulations only provide for better
gratuity in terms of Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act,
which the Full Bench held, will prevail over the second proviso to
Rule 59(3) of the Rules.
9. In the light of the afore discussions, we are of the view that
there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment
passed by the learned single judge.
Ergo, we find no merit in this writ appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed. The appellants are directed to pay the
balance gratuity to respondents 1 to 15 within four weeks from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
Judge
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
Judge
dpk
