DONALD VIDYADHAR KUNDER v. THE KASARAGOD CO-OP. TOWN BANK LTD.

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.ANJU P.NAIR R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.SUNIL, SC SRI.P.V.MOHANAN, SC R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.P. PADMALAYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-09-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 11043/2011 & CONNECTED CASES , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 1090 of 2011 (I) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : APPENDIX EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28/4/2010. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/11/2000 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).NOS. 1090, 11701, 11043, 11084, 11478, 11479, 11480 11481 and 23878 OF 2011 ------------------------- DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 JUDGMENT Writ Petition Nos.1090, 11701, 11043 and 11084/2011 are filed by the retired employees of the lst respondent-Bank seeking a direction to the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board (for short 'the Board') to disburse monthly pension to the petitioners and also for a direction to respondents 1 and 3 to release the arrears of salary consequent to the pay revision ordered with effect from 1/4/2008 with interest within a time frame.

2. The connected writ petitions are filed by the Kasaragod Co- operative Town Bank Ltd. Challenging the demand made by the Board. The Board demanded arrears of contribution. The order dated 29/7/2011 passed by the Board rejecting Ext.P2 objection is produced as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C).No.23878/2011. Similar orders were passed in the other connected writ petitions. The said writ petition is filed W.P.(C).Nos.1090/2011 and connected cases. -2- seeking to quash the demand notice, for a direction to the Board to re-consider Ext.P3 order, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner-Bank and for a direction to the Board not to recover the amounts demanded and for other incidental reliefs.

3. The retired employees, who are the petitioners in the first four writ petitions, contended that they have right to get pension and other retiral benefits on superannuation from service under the statutory scheme and provisions and therefore the respondents are legally obliged to disburse the same without undue delay. It is also contended that the Board is statutorily obliged to disburse pension to the petitioners, in view of the objects and mandates contained in the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994. They also contended that they are entitled to the arrears of salary for the period from 1/4/2008 till the date of retirement consequent to the pay revision with effect from 1/4/2008 and therefore the Kasaragod Co- W.P.(C).Nos.1090/2011 and connected cases. -3- operative Town Bank is liable to disburse the arrears of salary without further delay. It is contended that the non-disbursal of the retiral benefits due to the petitioners cannot be justified and the petitioners are entitled to be re-compensated the loss and therefore they claimed interest for the delayed payment. It is not disputed that the retired employees of the Bank are entitled to get monthly pension from the Board constituted under the Kerala State Co- operative Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994, provident fund and gratuity under the relevant statues. Petitioners submitted various representations before the Board. Ext.P3 dated 30/11/2001 is one of the representations submitted by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.1090/2011.

4. In the writ petitions filed by the Kasaragod Co- operative Town Bank, it is contended that the Bank was remitting the contribution under the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994, regularly, that every year W.P.(C).Nos.1090/2011 and connected cases. -4- the Auditors of the Co-operative Department were auditing the contribution made by the petitioner-Bank towards the Pension Board and that no complaints have been made against the petitioner-Bank by the Auditors till date. But the Board issued demand notices stating that more amounts are due from the petitioner-Bank and the Bank is liable to pay interest at 24% for the amounts due. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank that demand notices were issued without issuing notice to the petitioner-Bank nor conducting any enquiry by the Board. Whenever demand notices were received, the petitioner submitted objections disputing the rate of interest charged by the Board. It is also pointed out that the Board rejected the objections raised by the petitioner-Bank without considering any of the contentions raised by them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, writ petitions are filed seeking to quash the demand notices and for other reliefs. W.P.(C).Nos.1090/2011 and connected cases. -5-

5. I have considered the rival contentions raised by the parties. The grievance of the retired employees is that they have not received pension and other benefits, though the Board and the Bank are duty bound to disburse the same due to them. The grievance of the Bank is that the demand now made by the Board is illegal, as the demand made is without issuing notice, without hearing them and without ascertaining as to whether any amounts are due from them. The grievance put forward by the petitioners- Bank in the aforesaid writ petitions will have to be enquired into by the Secretary of the Board. No opportunity was given to the petitioners-retired employees to ventilate their grievances before the Bank. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the demand notices issued to the petitioners-Bank are quashed. The Secretary of the Board shall consider the issue again, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners-Bank to substantiate their contentions, which were raised in the objections already W.P.(C).Nos.1090/2011 and connected cases. -6- submitted before the Board and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petitions filed by the Bank are disposed of as above. Writ Petitions filed by the retired employees are disposed of with a direction to the Secretary of the Bank to consider the claim of the retired employees and pass appropriate orders, affording an opportunity of being heard to them, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the decision of the Secretary of the Pension Board as aforesaid. The Bank is at liberty to move the Board for availing benefits declared by the Government in G.O.No.484/2012 dated 7/9/2012. kcv. Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.