IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2032 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.15493/1994 Dated 29/08/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- N.K. SADASIVAN PILLAI, BRANCH MANAGER (RETD.), TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NOW RESIDING AT LAKSHMY KRISHNA, T.C.15540, EDAPPAZHANJI, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-10. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION (C-I) DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & R2 SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHAN,SC,TVM.DIST.CO.OP. FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.2032 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appellant joined the service of the third respondent-Bank as a Clerk in the year 1962. Prior to his promotion as Branch Manager, he suffered disciplinary proceedings leading to suspension and minor punishment. Even though his claim was for promotion as Branch Manager with effect from May 1973, he was actually promoted only on 19.3.1984. However, before his promotion as Branch Manager, six persons junior to him were promoted as Branch Managers pursuant to Board resolution on 6.6.1981. The appellant's protracted representation before the Government, the Bank, Registrar of Co-operative Societies etc. led to decision by the Bank to give retrospectivity to his promotion as Branch Manager with effect from the actual date on which six persons junior to him were promoted as Branch Managers. Consequent upon this decision, the promotion given to the appellant as Branch Manager on 19.3.1984 was made effective from 6.6.1981 and in the W.A. No.2032/2006 2 seniority list, appellant was placed above the juniors. The appellant continued in service and retired on 31.5.1991 and is presently a pensioner. 2. Even though the learned Single Judge has not considered the question raised by the appellant in the W.P.(C), counsel for the appellant submitted that limited prayer is for retrospective promotion only by six days i.e. to change the actual date of retrospectivity for promotion from 6.6.1981 to 30.5.1981. The ground raised by the counsel in support of appellant's prayer is that decision for promotion of the six persons who were junior to appellant, was taken by the Bank by their resolution dated 30.5.1981 and they have not in the resolution stated that the promotion should be with reference to 6.6.1981. However, persons promoted pursuant to resolution of the Board got promotion only on 6.6.1981 because the Secretary or the Chief Executive issued the order pursuant to the resolution of the Board only on that date. It appears that those promoted pursuant to such order has not challenged the same and so much so, their promotion took effect only with effect from 6.6.1981, no matter they could have W.A. No.2032/2006 3 claimed promotion from the date of decision by the committee of the Bank. The appellant's case is that since his juniors promoted pursuant to resolution of the Board on 30.5.1981 were entitled to promotion with effect from that date and since appellant's promotion was given retrospectivity with effect from date of promotion of his juniors, he is entitled to promotion with effect from 30.5.1981, no matter the juniors promoted to him did not seek such a relief. Counsel appearing for the Bank on the other hand submitted that at this distance of time appellant cannot claim retrospective promotion and the resolution of the board passed on 30.5.1981 does not apply to the appellant for him to press for implementation of the order with effect from that date. We are unable to uphold the claim of the appellant because in substance we find that the relief granted to the appellant by way of retrospectivity was essentially a matter of seniority because considering the minor punishment imposed to the appellant pursuant to suspension, Bank did not want appellant's juniors to supercede him. Therefore, in effect the decision taken to give retrospectivity to the appellant's promotion was to restore his seniority above those promoted on 6.6.1981. In other W.A. No.2032/2006 4 words, retrospectivity given to appellant's promotion has no relevance with the decision of the Board to promote appellant's juniors on 30.5.1981. Further, if appellant's juniors were promoted on a date even subsequent to 6.6.1981, then the appellant would have been entitled to seniority only along with them i.e. with effect from such date on which they were promoted. The appellant has no case that the juniors promoted on 6.6.1981 have claimed promotion with effect from 30.5.1981 and so much so, there is no justification for us to order retrospectivity to appellant's promotion with effect from 30.5.1981 i.e. the date on which the Board decided to promote appellant's juniors. Consequently Writ Appeal is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms