[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Neduvathoor Service Co Operative Bank ... vs Ashok Kumar K on 27 February, 2026
W.A.No.399 of 2026
1
2026:KER:16828
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WA NO. 399 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.01.2026 IN WP(C)
NO.10979 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 NEDUVATHOOR SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.3856
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEDUVATHOOR,
NEELESWARAM P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691505
2 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, NEDUVATHOOR SERVICE
CO OPERATIVBE BANK LTD NO.3856, NEDUVATHOOR,
NEELESWARAM P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691505
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
SRI.HARISANKAR N UNNI
SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.3:
1 ASHOK KUMAR K
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, THOTTATHIL VEEDU,
NEELESWARAM P O, NEDUVATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691505
2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
CO OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691013
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2026, THE COURT ON 27.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.399 of 2026
2
2026:KER:16828
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
........................................
W.A.No.399 of 2026
.................................................................
Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
P.V. Balakrishnan, J
This intra-court appeal is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in
W.P.(C)No.10979 of 2025, challenging the judgment dated
22.01.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the
writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein.
2. The 1st respondent herein/writ petitioner, while
working as a Senior Clerk in the appellant bank, was suspended
from service on 02.09.2023, as per Ext.P1 order on the
allegation that he had committed various irregularities. In
Ext.P1, it is specifically stated that the 1 st respondent will be
entitled for subsistence allowance during the suspension period.
Even though the 1st respondent demanded payment of
subsistence allowance, the appellants denied the same. It is
hence, the 1st respondent filed the afore writ petition seeking a
direction that he be paid subsistence allowance from
02.09.2023, till date.
2026:KER:16828
3. The learned Single Judge after considering the
materials on record and hearing both sides, allowed the writ
petition and directed the appellants to pay the 1 st respondent
arrears of subsistence allowance due to him, till date and
continue paying the same, till the suspension is revoked.
4. Heard Adv. Swathi Kumar B.S., the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Adv. S. Sachithananda Pai, the
learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent .
5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that
the 1st respondent did not approach the appellants seeking
subsistence allowance, and he also did not submit the non-
employment certificate, which is a mandatory requirement for
sanctioning subsistence allowance. He further submitted that
the 1st respondent has misappropriated a sum of Rs.20 lakhs,
thereby causing loss to the appellants and that the appellants
are in the process of initiating action against him. He contended
that, as evidenced by Ext.R2(a), the 1 st respondent is profitably
gained from farming operations for the last two years by
engaging in agricultural activities and therefore, is not entitled
to get subsistence allowance.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent
supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are
2026:KER:16828
no grounds to interfere with the same. He submitted that as per
Ext.P1, the appellants have admitted the entitlement of the 1 st
respondent for subsistence allowance and that even though he
has produced Ext.P2 non-employment certificate, the appellants
have not sanctioned the subsistence allowance. He further
contended that Ext.R2(a) will not in any manner help the
appellants to avoid the payment of subsistence allowance.
7. The materials on record, especially Ext.P1, would go
to show that the appellants are not disputing the entitlement of
the 1st respondent for subsistence allowance. The contention
raised by the appellants in the counter affidavit filed in the writ
petition is that the 1st respondent has not produced a non-
employment certificate, which is a mandatory requirement for
sanctioning subsistence allowance. But as rightly found by the
learned Single Judge, it can be seen that the 1 st respondent has
produced Ext.P2 non-employment certificate, even though
during the pendency of the writ petition. As regards Ext.R2(a),
we are of the view that the same cannot be considered as an
employment in an establishment as stipulated in the proviso to
Section 3 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act,
1972.
8. It is a settled law, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
2026:KER:16828
in the decision in Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v.
M/s Scope Sales Private Ltd. [2026 KHC Online 6072], that the
exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction is warranted only
where the judgment or order under challenge is demonstrably
erroneous or suffers from perversity. It is also of the law that
such jurisdiction ought not to be invoked merely because
another view is possible on the same set of facts, particularly
where the view adopted by the Single Judge is a plausible and
reasonable one. In light of the afore discussions, we do not find
any error or perversity in the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge and the view adopted by him is a plausible and
reasonable one.
Therefore, this writ appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
Dxy
