Kerala High Court
Bindhu Vijayan vs The Deputy Director Of Dairy ... on 3 February, 2026
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2026:KER:9735
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 14TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18198 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BINDHU VIJAYAN,
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O.M.VIJAYAN,EDATT HOUSE, VALLACHIRA P.O,
KADALASSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680562
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
SMT.POOJA PANKAJ
SMT.NAYANZA FERIN C.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT,
THRISSUR,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY
DEVELOPMENT, CHEMBUKKAV, THRISSUR.,
PIN - 680020
2 ARATTUPUZHA KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA
SANGHAM LTD NO.R 197 (D) APCOS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ARATTUPUZHA P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680562
3 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ARATTUPUZHA
KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD NO.R 197
(D) APCOS,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
ARATTUPUZHA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.,
PIN - 680562
2026:KER:9735
WP(C) No.18198 of 2025
2
4 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES'
PENSION BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JAWAHAR
SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, 7TH FLOOR, DPI JUNCTION,
THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
SRI.M. SASINDRAN
SRI.ABRAHAM J. KANIYAMPADY
SRI.SANGEETH MOHAN
SRI.BAPPU GALIB SALAM
SMT.ANINDITA NANDAKUMAR
SMT.V.P. REJITHA
SRI.PREMCHAND R. NAIR, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:9735
WP(C) No.18198 of 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2026 The petitioner states that she resigned from service of the 2nd respondent-Society after rendering 23 years of unblemished service. The petitioner submitted resignation on 08.03.2022 which was accepted by the Society as can be seen from Ext.P2. Nevertheless, the terminal service benefits due to the petitioner were not paid. The Society desisted from paying the same stating that audit is pending and the liability of the petitioner, if any, has to be ascertained.
2. Subsequently, the audit team found a deficiency of ₹6,40,604/-. The liability was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner states that no proceedings fixing the liability on the petitioner was initiated. The petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before fixing the liability. No 2026:KER:9735 WP(C) No.18198 of 2025 4 Show-cause Notice was served on the petitioner either. Therefore, no amount can be recovered from the terminal benefits of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner relied on certain Division Bench judgments of this Court and contended that the Board of Directors are not vested with the power to quantify the liability in respect of its employees and to recover the same from the terminal benefits of the employees unilaterally. The petitioner therefore sought to direct the respondents to pay the terminal benefits due to the petitioner.
4. Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the 1st respondent, it is submitted that the petitioner approached the 1st respondent seeking intervention in the matter based on a representation. The Secretary had to complete necessary registers and submit it before the audit team and get the audit completed during the service period.
2026:KER:9735 WP(C) No.18198 of 2025 5
5. By letter dated 10.05.2024, the President and Secretary of the Society were directed to submit the tallied receipts and disbursement statements of the relevant years. The audit is still completed only upto 2020-2021. As per the report, there was a deficit in cattle feed advance sale. On 30.10.2024, the Society passed a resolution to recover the same from those who are responsible for the shortfall. It is in such circumstances that amounts are sought to be recovered from the terminal benefits of the petitioner.
6. Respondents 2 and 3 also resisted the writ petition. Respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner was entitled to retiral benefits to the tune of ₹6,84,260.15 on account of Gratuity, Provident Fund and Staff Security Deposit (SSD). But, after the completion of 2021-2022 audit, it was found that there was a deficit of ₹6,40,604.45 due to the 2nd respondent-Society from the petitioner. The remaining retiral benefits would come to only ₹43,655.70.
2026:KER:9735 WP(C) No.18198 of 2025 6
7. Respondents 2 and 3 further submitted that the Society in question is a small Society which is operating in losses since the years 2016-2017. Respondents 2 and 3 are striving hard to overcome the difficulties caused by the willful mismanagement and negligence committed by the petitioner. Hence, considering the afore facts, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the 1st respondent and respective learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.
9. The fact that the petitioner served the Society for 23 years and resigned from service on 08.03.2022 is not in dispute. The resignation submitted by the petitioner was accepted also. It is also not in dispute that terminal benefits are due to the petitioner. The terminal benefits were withheld on the ground that the audit is not complete.
2026:KER:9735 WP(C) No.18198 of 2025 7
10. In the audit, ₹6,40,604/- was found deficient and the liability was fixed on the petitioner. It is based on the said fixation of liability that the terminal benefits of the petitioner are not paid.
11. In the judgment in Philip C.M. v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2018 (3) KLT 347], a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no power granted to the Board of Management of the Society to quantify the damages under the Statute or the Rules, the Board of Management is not at liberty to quantify the damages allegedly suffered by the Bank. The Bank has to resort to Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 to seek recovery of any damages from its employees by instituting appropriate proceedings.
12. In the judgment in Joseph P.T. v.
M/s.Matsyafed and another [ILR 2022 (4) Kerala 792], another Division Bench of this Court held that if no action was taken 2026:KER:9735 WP(C) No.18198 of 2025 8 against an employee and if no charge memo is issued to the employee till the retirement, then the Board cannot resort to quantification of liability.
13. In Mohanan Nair P.G. v. Omallur Service Co- operative Bank Limited and others [ILR 2022 (2) Kerala 1123], a Division Bench of this Court held that the respondents cannot withhold the retiral benefits like Gratuity and Provident Fund from its employee which will be against statutory provisions contained in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules framed thereunder.
14. In Annamma Mathew v. Managing Committee of the Mavelikara Taluk Co-operative Bank Limited and others [ILR 2024 (4) Kerala 328], this Court interfered in a recovery proceedings from its employee even when there were surcharge proceedings against the employees. This Court held that such recovery can be resorted to only after proper adjudication of the liability of the employee resorting to 2026:KER:9735 WP(C) No.18198 of 2025 9 the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 itself.
15. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the afore Division Bench judgments, withholding of terminal benefits from the petitioner is to be declared as illegal.
The writ petition is therefore allowed. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to release the withheld terminal benefits of the petitioner within a period of three months with 12% interest. Needless to say, respondents 2 and 3 will be at liberty to proceed under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, if they are so advised.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk 2026:KER:9735 WP(C) No.18198 of 2025 10 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 18198 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14-09-2001 BEARING NUMBER D 6565/2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER DATED 08-03-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT SOCIETY Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03-04-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT SOCIETY Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06-07- 2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT SOCIETY Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15-11-
2023 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT SOCIETY TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 15-12-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE P & I MANAGER,
MILMA, THRISSUR
Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
10-05-2024 ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16-05- 2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 Exhibit-P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 20-06-2024 IN WP(C) NO.19966 OF 2024 Exhibit-P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30-03-2022 IN WP(C) NO.5555 OF 2022 2026:KER:9735 WP(C) No.18198 of 2025 11 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2A TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 DATED 28.02.2023 Exhibit R2B TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR 2021-22 DATED 27.10.2025 Exhibit R2C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.09.2023 SEND BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit R2D LETTER DATED 23.09.2023 SEND BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DIARY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CHERPU Exhibit R2E TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.04.2024 SEND BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT SOCIETY TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit R2F TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 29.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit R2G TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.01.2026 SEND BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT