IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35367 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MOKERI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F 1463, P.O.PATHAYAKKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY IT'S PRESIDENT P.ARAVINDAKSHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKUTTY. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KANNUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOOTHUPARAMBA. 4. T.P.KUMARAN, 'HARISREE', P.O.KOORARA, VIA CHAMPAD, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 694. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R4 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON 19/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 35367/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.9.5.91. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.27.7.93 OF R2. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30.7.08 BY R2. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.12.5.08 BY R2. P5. COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD.9.7.08 OF THE BANK. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.11.11.08 OF R2. P7. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.13.3.08 BY JOINT REGISTRAR. P8. COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE BANK. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R4A. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF BYELAW. “B. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.21.4.08 BEFORE R2. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.35367 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a co-operative Bank. The 4th respondent was an employee of the bank, who retired from service on 31.12.2005. He entered service as a Bill Collector/Clerk on 1.7.1971. The 4th respondent did not possess the requisite qualifications for promotion as Senior Clerk. The Bank requested the 2nd respondent for relaxation of the qualifications for enabling the 4th respondent to get promotion as Senior Clerk. By Ext.P2, such relaxation was sanctioned by the 2nd respondent. On 22.8.1997 the bank requested the 2nd respondent to sanction two higher grades to the 4th respondent, which was also sanctioned. By Ext.P3 dated 30.7.1998, the scale of pay of the 4th respondent was also duly fixed. The 4th respondent accepted the same without any protest whatsoever. Subsequently, he was promoted as Accountant and later as Assistant Secretary. He retired from service as Assistant Secretary on 31.12.2005. Two and a half years after retirement of the 4th respondent and almost 10 years after passing Ext.P3 order, on 12.5.2008, the bank was served with Ext.P4 notice to show cause as to why Ext.P3 order should not be reviewed. Despite Ext.P5 resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P6 order dated 11.11.2008 directing the petitioner bank to revise the basic pay of the petitioner from Rs.940/- to Rs.1075/- with effect from 1.7.1991. That order is under challenge 2 before me. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner bank is that it is totally unnecessary to review an order passed 10 years ago, that too, on a petition filed by the 4th respondent as late as 21.4.2008, ie., three years after his retirement. The bank would be burdened with huge amounts to be paid to the 4th respondent on account of the same. It is totally unreasonable and unsustainable, is the contention raised. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 and 3 justifying the order. Their main contention, on merits, is regarding the sustainability of the order on merits. Nothing is stated as to why after 10 years such an exercise of review should be undertaken, especially when the 4th respondent never objected to the fixation either at the time of fixation or at least at the time of his retirement. It is three years after his retirement that he has raised this objection. I am of opinion that the 4th respondent is guilty of unexplained delay and laches in the matter. Therefore, it was totally unjustified on the part of the 2nd respondent to review the fixation of pay of the 4th respondent after 10 years of the order of fixation of pay. Therefore, Ext.P6 order is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is quashed. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3