Kerala High Court
K. Sajeevan vs Matsyafed on 27 June, 2025
2025:KER:46667
WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO.14599 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
K.SAJEEVAN,AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O.KUTTAPPAN, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI BHAVAN,
PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 688 004.
BY ADVS. SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SHRI.REGINALD VALSALAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 MATSYAFED,(KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION
FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD), KAMALESHWARAM,
MANAKKAD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695 009.
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MATSYAFED, (KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION,
FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD),KAMALESHWARAM,
MANAKKAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 009.
BY ADVS. SHRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SC, MATSYAFED
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.06.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).14349/2023,
14450/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:46667
WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 14349 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
C.MANIAPPAN, AGED 59 YEARS,
S/O.CHELLAPPAN, RESIDING AT VISAKAM, KOMANA,
AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 561.
BY ADVS. SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
SHRI.REGINALD VALSALAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 MATSYAFED,(KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION
FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD), KAMALESHWARAM,
MANAKKAD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 009.
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MATSYAFED, (KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION
FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD), KAMALESHWARAM,
MANAKKAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 009.
BY ADV SHRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SC, MATSYAFED
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.06.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).14599/2023 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:46667
WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 14450 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
M.MOHAMMED SHEREEF,
AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O. H. MOIDEEN KUNJU, SHIFA (THACHEZHATHU),
VANDANAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 004.
BY ADVS. SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SHRI.REGINALD VALSALAN
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
1 MATSYAFED,(KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION
FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD), KAMALESHWARAM,
MANAKKAD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 009.
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MATSYAFED, (KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION
FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD), KAMALESHWARAM,
MANAKKAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 009.
BY ADVS. SHRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SC, MATSYAFED
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.06.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).14599/2023 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:46667
WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 4
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.14599/2023, 14349/2023, 14450/2023] In all these writ petitions, the respective petitioners were working as Assistant Managers, Matsyafed, (Kerala State Co- operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd.) District office, Alapuzha, at different spells during the period 2009- 2018. As part of their duties, they were placed in-charge of Vyasa Stores conducted by the Matsyafed at Ambalapuzha and all the petitioners have now retired from service. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.14599 of 2023 retired on 30.06.2021, the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.14349 of 2023 retired on 13.04.2021 and the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.14450 of 2023 retired on 31.03.2020. These petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to disburse the benefits of terminal leave surrender.
2. The facts that led to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows:-
2.1. In the surprise inspection conducted in the Vyasa Store on 24.01.2019, serious misappropriations of huge 2025:KER:46667 WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 5 amounts came to the notice of the respondents, which ultimately culminated in Ext.P1 report. It was noticed that the said misappropriations were caried out by a salesman in the said store and during the period from 2009 to 2018, a total amount of Rs.2,33,08,106/- was found to be misappropriated by the said salesman.
2.2. As part of the enquiry, notices, which are produced as Ext.P2 in all these writ petitions were sent to the respective petitioners and some other persons, who were holding charge of the Assistant Manager during the relevant period. In Ext.P2 notice, the petitioners and the other persons were directed to show-cause as to why disciplinary proceedings shall not be initiated against them for causing loss to the Matsyafed. The petitioners herein submitted Ext.P3 reply to the same, stating that they cannot be held responsible for the same as they were not involved in the transactions referred to in Ext.P1.
2.3. Thereafter, a Sub-Committee was formed by the 1st respondent for conducting the enquiry, and after conducting an enquiry, the said Sub-Committee submitted Ext.P5 report 2025:KER:46667 WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 6 before the 1st respondent, wherein, certain general directions were made and it was also found that the petitioners and the other persons who were served with notices, were also liable to the loss sustained to the 1 st respondent. The Sub-Committee also fixed the individual liabilities of the petitioners and other persons in Ext.P5. Subsequently, the Audit Department of the Government also conducted an enquiry and Ext.P7 report was submitted, wherein also, these irregularities were reiterated and the individual liabilities were fixed. In Ext.P7, it was recommended by the Audit wing that, considering the fact that the amount is huge, it may not be possible to realize the entire amount from Sri K.G.Ponnan, the salesman who allegedly misappropriated the same and therefore the petitioners and other superior officers of the said sales man, are also to be held liable. Accordingly, individual liabilities were also suggested in Ext.P7. On account of the same, retirement benefits of the petitioners and other persons who were referred to in the aforesaid reports, were not released.
2025:KER:46667 WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 7 2.4 In such circumstances, one of the persons namely P.T.Joseph, whose benefts were with held, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.12179 of 2022 seeking release of the retirement benefits. A learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing to disburse the retirement benefits, with a rider that, if the Society is able to obtain any interdictory orders from the competent Arbitrator, the directions above will stand modulated to that effect. The said judgment was taken up in appeal at the instance of the said employee and it culminated in Ext.P9 judgment. In the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court, while upholding the directions of the learned Single Judge to release the benefits, interfered with the rider imposed in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and held that that the said rider is liable to be vacated. It was clarified that the Society, after determination of the liability of the petitioner therein by the Arbitrator, may proceed against him.
2.5. In such circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing W.P.C.Nos.35121 of 2022, 35141 2025:KER:46667 WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 8 of 2022 and 35181 of 2022 seeking similar reliefs. Those writ petitions were disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P10, wherein, it was specifically observed that, it was conceded by both sides that all the issues involved in the writ petitions, both factual and legal, have been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment. In the light of the above, the 1 st respondent was directed to pay them all eligible retirement benefits within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment. Acting upon the same, Ext.P11 was issued by the Managing Director of the 1 st respondent, by directing the release of the DCRG to the petitioners. However, with regard to the terminal leave surrender due to the petitioners, it was ordered that the terminal leave surrender due to the petitioners shall be disbursed only after getting Non- Liability Certificate from the District Manager.
3. These writ petitions are submitted by the petitioners in these circumstances, challenging Ext.P11. Counter-affidavits were submitted by the respondents opposing the reliefs sought in these writ petitions. One of the main contentions raised by 2025:KER:46667 WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 9 the respondents is that, as far as the terminal leave surrender benefits are concerned, it would not form part of the retirement benefits and hence the said question is not covered by Exts.P9 and P10 judgments.
4. I have heard Sri.A.L.Navaneeth Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.T.P.Pradeep, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
5. As far as the entitlement of the petitioners to get the retirement benefits are concerned, the same is already decided in favour of the petitioners as per Exts.P9 and P10 judgments. In Ext.P9, after considering all the documents which formed the basis of the decision taken by the 1 st respondent to deny retirement benefits and other benefits to the petitioner therein, this Court came to the conclusion that the respondents cannot withhold the said benefits. Since, the right of the respondents to receive the retirement and other benefits or the power of the respondents to retain the said benefits of the petitioners based on the aforesaid documents/reports are already considered by this Court in Ext.P9, it is not open for the respondents to re-
2025:KER:46667 WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 10 agitate those matters in these writ petitions. This is particularly because, as per Ext.P10, while taking a decision in the case of the petitioners herein, this Court already taken note of the fact that all those issues are concluded in Ext.P9 and a specific direction was issued to the respondents to release all the retirement benefits of the petitioners.
6. Of course, it is true that the DCRG was released as per Ext.P11, which is issued in purported compliance of Ext.P10, but yet respondents withheld the terminal leave surrender benefits of the petitioners on the reason that the same can be released only after getting a Non-Liability Certificate from the District General Manager. In this regard, it is to be noted that, it is an admitted fact that all the benefits, including the terminal leave surrender were released to the petitioner in Ext.P9. More importantly, the person who was directly responsible for the misappropriation, the sales man in the said store, was also given all the retirement benefits on his retirement.
7. One of the contentions raised by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, in support of the 2025:KER:46667 WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 11 retention of the leave surrender benefits is that, the same does not form part of the retirement benefits. Even if that contention is accepted, the fact that, the entire benefits including the leave surrender benefits were granted in Ext.P9 and the same was taken note of in Ext.P10 and similar reliefs were directed to be granted to the petitioners, is a relevant fact which cannot be ignored. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents cannot be sustained.
8. The learned standing counsel raised a further contention that, as far as the petitioners are concerned, now already ARC proceedings are initiated, which are now pending before the Arbitrator as ARC 3/2022, ARC 4/2022 and ARC 8/2022. The learned standing counsel tried to distinguish Ext.P9 judgment on the reason that at the time when that judgment was passed, there were no ARC proceedings as against the petitioner therein. Therefore, since the ARC proceedings in these cases are already initiated, the respondents are entitled to insist for Non-Liability Certificate for releasing the terminal leave surrender benefits. However, I 2025:KER:46667 WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 12 am not inclined to accept the said contention. Even though ARC proceedings were not initiated at the time when Ext.P9 judgment was pronounced, the impact of the ARC proceedings proposed to be initiated, was considered by the Division Bench of this Court. In this regard, it is to be noted that, the rider referred to above, imposed by the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition was in anticipation of filing of ARC proceedings and it was observed that, the direction issued by the learned single Judge to disburse the retirement benefits shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the ARC proceedings. However, those orders were interfered with in Ext.P9 and the direction to release the retirement benefits was made unconditional, but subject to the liberty of the respondents to initiate and continue the ARC proceedings, and to realize the same from the parties concerned.
9. In such circumstances, the fact that the ARC proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by passage of time, cannot be a reason to deny the said benefits to the petitioners in the light of the directions in Ext.P10.
2025:KER:46667 WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 13
10. The learned standing counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon Rule 189(7) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules to support their decision to retain terminal leave surrender benefits. On carefully examining the said provision, it can be seen that the same deals with the retention of the "retirement benefits". Specific case of the learned standing counsel is that the terminal benefits do not form part of the retirement benefits. If the same is accepted, reliance cannot be placed on Rule 189 (7).
11. It is evident from the records that the right of the petitioners to get their retirement benefits and other benefits consequent to the retirement, including the leave surrender benefits, are already decided in their favour in Ext.P10, which in turn, was passed taking note of the factual and legal findings as to the right of the respondents to withhold such amounts, entered into in Ext P9 judgment. It is to be noted that, Ext P9 became final, and it was acted upon as well. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason in limiting the direction in Ext. P10 to the release of the DCRG alone and it has 2025:KER:46667 WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 14 to be held that the petitioners are entitled to the release of the leave surrender benefits also.
In such circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of, quashing Ext.P11, with a direction to the respondents to disburse the leave surrender benefits to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified that, none of these observations will prejudice the respondents in the ARC proceedings, while the liability of the petitioners are determined and the same shall be concluded untrammelled by any of the observations herein.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/28.6.25 2025:KER:46667 WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 15 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14349/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 03.07.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.
MATSYAFED/E1/2267/19 DATED 26.02.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION/REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.MATSYAFED/E1/2267/19 DATED 01.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT DATED 26.05.2021 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 2/21 TAKEN BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DATED 02.06.2021 Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE FINANCIAL AUDIT WING DATED NIL Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.09.2022 Exhibit-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO 1137 OF 2022 DATED 25.08.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.11.2022 IN WP(C) NO. 35121 OF 2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.MFED/ E1/3453/2021 DATED 30.01.2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2023 PASSED IN COC NO.81 OF 2023 2025:KER:46667 WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 16 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14450/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 03.07.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.
MATSYAFED/E1/2267/19 DATED 26.02.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION/REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 06.03.2020 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
MATSYAFED/E1/2267/19 DATED 01.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT DATED 26.05.2021 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 2/21 TAKEN BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DATED 02.06.2021 Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE FINANCIAL AUDIT WING DATED NIL Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.09.2022 Exhibit-P9 . TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA.NO 1137 OF 2022 DATED 25.08.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.11.2022 IN WP(C) NO. 35121 OF 2022 AND CONNECTED CASES PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2023 IN MFED/E1/6393/2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2025:KER:46667 WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 17 06.02.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN COC NO.80 OF 2023.
2025:KER:46667 WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 18 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14599/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 03.07.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.
MATSYAFED/E1/2267/19 DATED 26.02.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION/REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
MATSYAFED/E1/2267/19 DATED 01.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT DATED 26.05.2021 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 2/21 TAKEN BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DATED 02.06.2021.
Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE FINANCIAL AUDIT WING DATED NIL Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.09.2022.
Exhibit-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA.NO 1137 OF 2022 DATED 25.08.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.11.2022 IN WP(C) NO. 35121 OF 2022 AND CONNECTED CASES PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2023 IN MFED/E1/3894/2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2025:KER:46667 WPC.No.14599/23 & Conns. 19 06.02.2023 PASSED IN COC NO.78 OF 2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT