Kerala High Court
U.K.Radhakrishnan Nair vs The State Of Kerala
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MAY2016/28TH VAISAKHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 20711 of 2003 (N)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
1. U.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,
SECRETARY,KURICHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
NO.1538, KURICHY.P.O., KOTTAYAM.
2. A.N.JAYANTHI DEVI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
KURICHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
NO.1538, KURICHY.P.O., KOTTAYAM.
3. N.VINOD, BRANCH MANAGER,
KURICHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.1538.
KURICHY.P.O., KOTTAYAM.
4. ELSAMMA JOSEPH, JUNIOR CLERK,
KURICHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.1538,
KURICHY.P.O., KOTTAYAM.
5. K.P.SOMANATH, ATTENDER,
KURICHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.1538,
KURICHY.P.O., KOTTAYAM.
6. C.K.JALAJAMMA, PEON,
KURICHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.1538,
KURICHY.P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
-----------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM.
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
KOTTAYAM.
2/-
-2-
WP(C).NO.20711/2003
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
CHANGANASSERY.
4. KURICHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.1538,
KURICHY.P.O., KOTTAYAM.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL
R4 BY SRI.K.R.SUNIL,SC,CO-OP.EMP.PENSION BOARD
ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).NO.20711/2003
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT G.O.(P) NO.89/98/CO-OP
DATED 03/4/98.
P2 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO.K/1538/2003 DATED NIL
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C).No.20711/2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 18th Day of May, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The Government of Kerala, invoking powers under Section 109 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 read with sub-section (1) of Section 80 thereof, amended the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. These service rules classify the Co-operative Banks into different classes based on the norms. Ext.P1 is the amendment to the Co-operative Service Rules.
2. The petitioners are employees of the fourth respondent-
Bank. They have approached this Court aggrieved by the classification of the Society as a Class-V Society for the purpose of revision of salary. Ext.P2 is the order impugned. The petitioners' case W.P.(C).No.20711/2003 -:2:- is that the fourth respondent-Society would come within Class-II but since it did not fulfil the condition that the overdue under loans of the Society should not exceed 25% of the demand, it was classified as a Class-V Society. The overdue at the relevant time was 32% of the demand. There is no dispute about this.
3. In the above context, it is appropriate to refer to Class II and Class V structures in Ext.P1, which read as follows:
Class II Working Capital Rs.2.5 crores and above but 1 below Rs.5 crores.
2 Deposits Rs.2 crores and above 3 Loan outstanding Rs.2 crores and above Audit classification for the Not less than B 4 previous year Should have worked on profit at least for one year during immediate three 5 preceding years Overdues under loans Should not exceed 25% of 6 the demand W.P.(C).No.20711/2003 -:3:- Class-V Working Capital Rs.25 lakhs and above but 1 below Rs.75 lakhs 2 Deposits Rs.10 lakhs and above 3 Loan outstanding Rs.20 lakhs and above 4 Latest Audit Classification Not less than 'C' Overdue under loan Should not exceed 40% of 5 the demand
4. The only dispute that now remains is whether the petitioners' salary could be classified as that of the employees of a Class-V Society, on account of the overdues under loan accounts.
5. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In para.6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as follows:
"6. It is submitted that Exhibit P2 order issued by the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent Bank was strictly in accordance with norms specified in Exhibit P1 order. Hence, the classification made as Class 3 with effect from 01.04.1999 and class 2 with effect from 01.04.2002 is against the provisions of the Order. The terms regulating the percentage of overdue was 25% as against 32% prevailed in the 4th respondent Bank. In this circumstances, the 4th respondent Bank comes under Class 5."
W.P.(C).No.20711/2003 -:4:-6. By applying the classification norms, it can be seen that the petitioner's Society had a loan overdue of 32%, exceeding the 25%prescribed in Ext.P1 for Class-II. However, the petitioners have a case that as against 12 employees, there were only six employees.
Further, they have a case that the sale of the secured assests for the amount due to the Society in execution petitions could not be materialised due to want of Sale Officer appointed by the Department. There is no denial of this fact by the Department.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the classification referred in Ext.P1 though need not be interfered with, but while applying the norms, the respondents should have a judicious approach on a case to case basis. If, substantially, the norms had been complied with and some of the norms could not be complied due to the reasons beyond the control of the Society, the employees shall not be put to loss on W.P.(C).No.20711/2003 -:5:- account of classification of the category. The substantial right of the employees cannot be put on peril for the reasons beyond their control.
7. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the overdue amount under loans can be considered as a norm only when there is a finding to the effect that the employees of the Society failed to contribute their part in recovering the loan amount. In the absence of any such finding, classification of the fourth respondent-Society on account of the overdue amount as a Class-V Society is illegal and unsustainable. As a pre-requisite for such classification, the Authority must find out that the employees have contributed for less percentage of the overdue amount than contemplated in the classification. In the absence of any such findings, this Court is of the view that Ext.P2 has to be interfered with to the extent of classifying W.P.(C).No.20711/2003 -:6:- the employees of the fourth respondent-Society under Class-V. In view of the fact that the Society had otherwise fulfilled the conditions, there shall be a direction to revise the Society's classification as Class-
II for the period mentioned in Ext.P2. The writ petition is disposed of as above. It is made clear that all the consequential benefits shall be restored to the petitioners. Needful shall be done within three months. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms