Kerala High Court
K.S.Subitha vs The Mulloor Rural Co-Operative Society ...
Author: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/ 3RD CHAITHRA, 1938
WP(C).No. 2390 of 2010 (W)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. K.S.SUBITHA, AGED 33 YEARS,
D/O.A.KRISHNAN,
RESIDING AT THERIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, AVANAKUZHI,
THANNIMOODU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. R.JOSE, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.AUGUSTINE
RESIDING AT PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VENNIYOOR,
NELLIVILA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. N.V.ANIJA, AGED 38 YEARS,
D/O.S.NATARAJAN, RESIDING AT ANI NIVAS,
PONGAMMOODU, KOOVALASSERY PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
4. S.USHA, AGED 38 YEARS,
D/O.VELAPPAN NAIR, 'LEKSHMY', CHITHIRAMPAZHINJI,
ATHIYANNOOR, ARALUMMOODU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. S.BINDHU, AGED 37 YEARS,
D/O.T.SREEKANTAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT KADAKAMPU VEEDU,
KULATHOOR,UCHAKKADA PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
6. B.S.DHANYA, AGED 27 YEARS,
D/O.BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT L.V.SADANAM,
MUKKOLA, MULLOOR PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
7. P.RADHIKADEVI,AGED 45 YEARS
D/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT CHAMVILAKATH VEEDU,
MULLOOR, MULLOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
8. V.ANILKUMARI, AGED 41 YEARS,
D/O.P.GEORGE NADAR, RESIDING AT TWINS COTTAGE,
MUKKOLA, VENGANOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SMT.K.R.RIJA
WPC2390/10
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE MULLOOR RURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
NO.T.1499, MULLOOR PO, VIA VIZHINJAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
NEYYATTINKARA.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
R2 & R3 BY ADV.V.K.RAFEEK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WPC2390/10
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
P1 : COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 14.03.2005 ISSUED BY R1
TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
P1(a) : COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 14.03.2005 ISSUED BY
R1 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
P1(b) : COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 10.03.2006 ISSUED BY
R1 TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
P1(c) : COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 14.03.2005 ISSUED BY
R1 TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.
P1(d) : COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 05.04.2006 ISSUED BY
R1 TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.
P1(e) : COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 10.05.2006 ISSUED BY
R1 TO THE 6TH PETITIONER.
P1(f) : COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 14.03.2005 ISSUED BY
R1 TO THE 6TH PETITIONER.
P1(g) : COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 14.03.2005 ISSUED BY
R1 TO THE 8TH PETITIONER.
P2 : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14.01.2010 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
P2(a) : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14.01.2010 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE
2ND PETITIONER.
P2(b) : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14.01.2010 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE
3RD PETITIONER.
P2(c) : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14.01.2010 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE
4TH PETITIONER.
P2(d) : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14.01.2010 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE
5TH PETITIONER.
P2(e) : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14.01.2010 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE
6TH PETITIONER.
P2(f) : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14.01.2010 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE
7TH PETITIONER.
P2(g) : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14.01.2010 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE
8TH PETITIONER.
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE.
jg-29/4
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
WP(C) No.2390 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2016
J U D G M E N T
1.This writ petition reflects a pitiable state of affairs owing to enormous delay in the executive functions in terms of statutory provisions.
2.Petitioners are employed by the first respondent, a Rural Co- operative Society. Counter affidavit of that society shows that it had taken all steps for category fixation and classification and getting the Sub Rules ratified by the Registrar. That exercise started sometime in November, 2009.
3.The petitioners had to be employed by the Society for managing its work and, therefore, they were appointed on different dates, obviously awaiting the decision on the question of classification and approval of the Sub Rules.
WPC2390/10 -2-
4.When enormous delay occurs at the hands of statutory functionaries in dealing with matters of this nature, the resultant situation is crippling of the functions of a co-operative establishment. The laudable objects sought to be achieved through the co-operative movement, which is among the objects and reasons of the laws governing co-operative societies from time to time, clearly indicate that the statutory checks and balances maintained through the statutory authorities should necessarily be only for ensuring that the co-operative sector becomes a vibrant institution of governance "By the People, For the People and Of the People". It is not intended to be a sword in the hands of the so-called statutory authorities and the co- operative societies and their employees running under the cover of shields to escape the wrath and irresponsible actions by the executive. I am constrained to say all these in this litigation because right from the post of cashier down, there was no one who could be retained on regular basis, as a result of the lethargy in the matter of approving the Sub Rules. There is no instruction WPC2390/10 -3- offered by the Department to the learned Government Pleader to make any submission justifying the stand taken by the statutory auditors. In the absence of Sub Rules being approved, the statutory auditors would have done only their job of audit, in accordance with the Rules. But on the scales of justice, the resultant situation created by the executives is annihilation of the right to life and basic human rights of the petitioners. It is also wholly arbitrary and violative of the equality doctrine contained in Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It also infracts the seminal principles relating to opportunity spread out in Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
5.For the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P2 series of orders are quashed. The petitioners would be eligible to continue to work and the statutory authorities, including respondent Nos.2 and 3, are directed to conclude on any request of the first respondent pending for approval of the Sub Rules.
WPC2390/10 -4- Before parting, it is also recorded that though there is an interim order on 01.02.2010 allowing the petitioners to continue to draw wages on condition of refund, the imposition of the condition of refund is hereby vacated. It is also recorded that petitioners 1, 3 and 6 have already left the service, and that the benefit that would accrue to them in terms of this judgment and the aforenoted interim order is only to the effect of the interim order without any liability for refund till they demitted the office. This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
(THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) jg-23/3