Kerala High Court
T.R.Sambasivan Nair vs The Keral State Co-Operative Employees on 6 November, 2009
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2012/1ST JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 34095 of 2010 (J)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
T.R.SAMBASIVAN NAIR,S/O.P.N.RAMAN PILLAI,
THURUTHIYKL PUTHENPURACKAL,VALLAMKULAM.P.O,
THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
SRI.T.NIKLAVU
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE KERAL STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES
PENSION BOARD,KALA NIVAS,T.C NO.27/156,
157, CHINMAYA LANE,KUNNUMPURA,
NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1,
REPRESENTED BY ITS, SECRETARY.
2. THE VALLAMKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE,
BANK LTD.NO.2163,VALLAMKULAM.P.O,TIRUVALLA-689541,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL,SC,CO-OP.EMP.PENSION BOARD
BY ADV.SRI.P.V.MOHANAN,SC,K.ST.CO.OP.EMP.PENSION BOARD.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LSN
WP(C).No. 34095 of 2010 (J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 06/11/2009.
P1(a): COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER STATING THAT AN
AMOUNT OF RS.97,486/- WAS DUE TOWARDS EMLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION FROM
RESPONDENT NO.2 BANK.
P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICAITON DATED 15/12/2009 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
NO.1 TO RESPONDENT NO.2
P3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 09/12/2009 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1
BOARD.
P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29/01/2010 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
NO.1 BOARD.
P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/10/2010 BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
LSN
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
--------------------------------------
WP(C) No.34095 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a former employee of the second respondent co-operative society. He entered service as a salesman on 1.7.1976. In course of time he was promoted to higher posts and retired from service on 30.6.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation while he was working as Assistant Secretary of the second respondent society. The petitioner was a member of the contributory Provident Fund established by the second respondent society. After the Kerala Co- operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 (herein after referred to as the `Pension Scheme' for short), was introduced, the second respondent bank transferred the employers share of contribution to the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board, herein after referred to as 'the Pension Board' for short, with interest. This was done before the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. However, there was a dispute between the Pension Board and the second respondent society as regards the exact amount payable under the Pension Scheme. That dispute was settled only today when WP(C) No.8495 of 2010 filed by the second respondent society was disposed of in its favour. This writ petition was WP(C)No.34095 of 2010 -2- filed in the interregnum on 10.11.2010 seeking payment of pension with effect from 1.7.2010 together with interest. After this writ petition was filed, the Pension Board issued an order dated 30.5.2011 according sanction for payment of Rs.9,583 per mensem as pension and arrears for the period from 1.7.2010 to 31.5.2011 amounting to Rs.1,05,413/-. The petitioner is thus receiving superannuation pension.
2. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, Sri.S.Subhash Chand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Thulasi Devi v. Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board (2008 (4) KLT 647) that nonpayment of contribution by an employer is not a reason to withhold payment of pension to the employee, that inability to pay is not an answer and therefore the Pension Board ought to have disbursed the superannuation pension to the petitioner and taken steps to recover the amount, if any, due from the employer society by instituting appropriate proceedings. The learned counsel submitted that the mere fact that there was a dispute between the employer society and the Pension Board does not justify the delay in payment of pension. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in WP(C)No.34095 of 2010 -3- Dua v. State of Haryana (2008 (3) KLT 58 (SC)) to contend that even in the absence of a statutory rule, administrative instructions or guidelines an employee can claim interest relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel also submitted that as the Pension Board had itself sanctioned and disbursed pension to the petitioner even when the writ petition was pending and as there was no justification at all for withholding payment of pension for nearly one year, the Pension Board may be directed to pay a reasonable amount by way of interest on the arrears of pension for the period from 1.7.2010 till 30.5.2011. Sri.K.R.Sunil, learned counsel appearing for the Pension Board contended that though the second respondent society and its employees were enrolled in the Self Financing Pension Scheme on 19.9.2001, large amounts were due from the employer society that a dispute in that regard was also pending in this Court, that there was no deliberate failure on the part of the Pension Board in sanctioning and disbursing pension to the employees of the bank, that in view of the dispute between the employer society and the Pension Board a code number was allotted to the petitioner only on 2.12.2010, that pension was paid within six months thereafter and therefore there is no reason why the Pension Board should be mulcted with the liability to pay interest.
WP(C)No.34095 of 2010 -4-
3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel appearing on either side regarding payment of interest. The petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2010. As on that date WP(C) No.8495 of 2010 filed by the second respondent society on 12.3.2010 was pending in this Court. In that writ petition the employer society had challenged the demand made by the Pension Board for payment of the sum of Rs.4,18,403/- by way of further contribution together with interest at 24% per annum from 1.1.2010 and had also sought benefits under One Time Settlement Scheme. The employer society had also prayed for an order directing the Pension Board to allot a code number to it and its employees. The said writ petition was heard and disposed of by this Court only today granting the reliefs prayed for. It was only today that the demand made by the Pension Board for the sum of Rs.4,18,403/- was repelled and it was held that no further amount is payable by the employer bank. In such circumstances, as the demand for Rs.4,18,403/- was pending and there was a bonafide dispute between the employer society and the Pension Board as regards the amounts payable by the employer society under paragraph 39 of the Pension Scheme which deals with transfer of the employer's share of contribution standing to the credit of each employee in the contributory provident fund maintained by the society, I am of the WP(C)No.34095 of 2010 -5- opinion that it would not be just or proper to mulct the Pension Board with liability to pay interest.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the delay on the part of the Pension Board in sanctioning and disbursing pension to the petitioner was deliberate. In such circumstances, I find no grounds to direct the Pension Board to pay interest on the arrears of pension paid to the petitioner for the period from 1.7.2010 to 30.5.2011.
The writ petition is accordingly closed as infructuous.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
Rkc // true copy// PA to Judge