Kerala High Court
P.V.Viswanathan vs Haripad Service Co-Operative Bank ... on 7 July, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY,THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2016/10TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 14224 of 2015 (C)
----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
P.V.VISWANATHAN,
BRANCH MANAGER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
H.O.ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------
1. HARIPAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3354
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HARIPAD P.O.
ALAPPUZHA-690514.
2. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE HARIPAD
SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3354,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, HARIPAD P.O.
ALAPPUZHA-690514.
3. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES' PENSION BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.B.NO.85, KALA NIVAS,
T.C.NO.27/156, 157, CHINMAYA LANE,
KUNNUMPURAM, NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.
4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
KARTHIKAPPLY, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA-690514.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL,SC
R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.VIJULAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-05-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 14224 of 2015 (C)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT-P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.7.2014 OF THE PETITIONER
SEND TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.9.2014 ALONG WITH THE
CALCULATION STATEMENT.
EXHIBIT-P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 20.11.1999 OF THE
PETITIONER SEND TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30.9.2003 FILED BEFORE THE
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, KARTHIKAPPALY.
EXHIBIT-P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 18.7.2013 SEND TO THE
SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 23.10.2013 SEND TO THE
SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 3.9.2014 SECOND TO THE
SECOND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.14224 of 2015
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2016
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay pension contribution of the petitioner to the 3rd respondent Pension Board in order to get pension counting his service in the 1st respondent bank as qualifying service as provided under clause 7(2) of the State and District Co-operative Employees Pension Scheme, hereinafter called "the Scheme" and for other related reliefs, for payment of salary and other retirement benefits.
2. Material facts required for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows; petitioner joined the service of the 1st respondent bank on 15.9.1976 and relieved from service on 17.7.1998 to join in the Alappuzha District Co-operative Bank on 18.7.1998 in the vacancy earmarked for the employees of the affiliated societies under Rule 187 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, hereinafter called "the KCS Rules". As per Rule 187 of the KCS Rules, 50% of the vacancies of the Central W.P.(C). No.14224 of 2015 2 Societies are earmarked for the employees working in the affiliated societies of the concerned Central Societies. Since relieving the petitioner from service on 17.7.1998 of the 1st respondent, petitioner is entitled to get the monitory benefits with interest which are as follows:
1.Arrears of salary from 1.7.1991 to 17.7.1998 amounting to Rs.1,54,010/-
2. The gratuity for 22 years of service amounting to Rs.70,607/-
3. Leave surrender of Rs.30,067/-
4. Provident fund amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-
5.Refund of security deposit of Rs.2,000/-
6. Welfare deposit of Rs.35,000/-
3. However the 1st and 2nd respondents failed to adhere to the request made by the petitioner which persuaded the petitioner to approach this court by filing this writ petition.
4. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations, statements and demands contained in the writ petition. So far as the claim of the petitioner with respect to the pension scheme is concerned, it is the prime contention of the 1st and 2nd respondents that, the petitioner is not entitled to get the W.P.(C). No.14224 of 2015 3 service rendered with the 1st respondent bank counted, for the reason that there was no scheme in force when the petitioner was working with the 1st respondent bank. So far as the arrears of salary and other pensionary benefits are concerned, it is contended by the 1st respondent that they are only imaginary and the petitioner is not entitled to make any claim in that regard.
So far the arrears of salary is concerned, it is the contention of the 1st respondent that the arrears of salary claimed by the petitioner is pertaining to the year 1991 - 1998 and therefore, the said claim is barred by limitation under any circumstances.
5. The 3rd respondent has filed counter affidavit contending that as provided under Clause 7(2) of the Pension Scheme, the service rendered by the petitioner with the 1st respondent bank is entitled to be counted for the purpose of calculating pension.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made across the Bar, perusal of pleadings and the documents on record, I am of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner with W.P.(C). No.14224 of 2015 4 respect to the arrears of salary from the year 1991 - 1998 while working in the 1st respondent bank cannot be sustained in view of the fact that petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2015. Claiming for the amount, so belatedly cannot be entertained for the reason that a writ petition making a claim will have to be laid before this court within a reasonable period from the cause of action. It is a well settled legal proposition that a period of two years may be a reasonable period to make any claim. Here is a case where petitioner has raised the said claim almost after 20 years from the amount has fallen due. Therefore, the claim for arrears of salary raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is declined. So far as the service rendered by the petitioner with the 1st respondent bank is concerned, I am guided by clause 7(2) of the Pension Scheme which reads as follows:
"(2) The service of an employee of a Bank in another Bank or affiliated societies shall be treated as qualifying service, provided the other Bank has transferred to the pension fund the employer's contribution paid to the provident fund by the bank in respect of that employee for a period the W.P.(C). No.14224 of 2015 5 employee was in the service of the other Bank or affiliated societies or the employee has refunded to the pension fund the amount of employer's contribution in the provident fund, together with 12% interest per annum, if any, received by him from the other banks."
8. On a reading of sub-clause (2) of clause 7, it is categoric and clear that the service rendered by an employee in a bank is liable to be counted for the purpose of calculating the pension. Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioner is entitled to get the service rendered with the 1st respondent counted for the purpose of calculating pension.
9. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent in that regard submitted that the 1st respondent has to forward the pension contribution of the petitioner in order to enable the 3rd respondent to process the pension papers.
10. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to forward the pension contribution of the petitioner with the interest applicable to the 3rd respondent bank within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. So far as the pensionary benefits are concerned, the W.P.(C). No.14224 of 2015 6 sole contention put forth by the 1st and 2nd respondents in their counter is that the claims made by the petitioner is imaginary in nature. After making a survey of the contention put forth by the petitioner and 1st and 2nd respondents, I am of the considered opinion that 1st and 2nd respondents have failed to establish before this court that the petitioner is not entitled to get the retiral benefits as claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition. Therefore, 1st and 2nd respondents will pay all the service benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months from the from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, 1st respondent will be liable to pay interest from the date of filing this writ petition i.e.11.5.2015.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
//true copy// JUDGE
P.A. To Judge
smv
31.05.2016