IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 738 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22932/2004 Dated 14/03/2007 .................... APPELLANT/4th RESPONDENT: -------------- VADAKKE ANGADI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.A-705, PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: --------------------- 1. SCARIA JOSEPH, KARAKKASSERIL HOUSE, KANNADY P.O., PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA. 2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, T.C.NO.23/2781, RAJASREE, CHETTIKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE VERIFICATION OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, ALAPPUZHA. SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.A.G.ANEETHA FOR R3 SRI.JOMY GEORGE FOR R1 SRI.P.V.MOHANAN FOR R2 & R4. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A. No.738 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the 4th respondent in the writ petition. The 1st respondent herein was an employee of the appellant Bank, who sought voluntary retirement and based on the resolution of the bank, he retired from the service also. The various service benefits due to him remained unpaid. So, he filed representations before various authorities including the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the 3rd respondent herein, and thereafter filed the writ petition seeking various reliefs against the respondents therein. There was already an order of the Joint Registrar dated 21.7.2004 directing the appellant bank to pay various service benefits due to the 1st respondent as per the decision of the Co-operative adalat dated 28.6.2004. In the writ petition, there was an interim order to implement the said order of the Joint Registrar. Finally, the writ petition was disposed of making that order absolute. This appeal is filed by the Bank mainly raising three grounds. The first ground is that W.A. No.738/2008 2 there was no prayer in the writ petition for the implementation of the order of the Joint Registrar dated 21.7.2004. The second ground is that the 1st respondent had an alternative efficacious remedy and therefore, he should not have filed the writ petition. Thirdly, it is contended that the 1st respondent retired from service subject to the conditions indicated in the resolution passed by the Bank concerning payment of terminal benefits. Thereafter, he should not have turned round and claimed the full benefits. 2. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner prayed for a larger relief. But, the relief granted was only to implement the order of the Joint Registrar. It is the admitted position that the order of the Joint Registrar has become final. Therefore, granting a lesser relief, than that is prayed for, cannot be said to be illegal or improper. So, the first ground raised by the petitioner fails. In this case the petitioner has alternate remedies for getting the various reliefs sought by him. But, in fact, he pressed for only one relief, that is, implementation of the order of the Joint Registrar. Since that order has become final, the Bank was bound to implement it. For implementation of a direction issued W.A. No.738/2008 3 by the Joint Registrar under Section 66 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, there is no other alternative remedy under the statute. So the second ground also cannot be accepted. The various benefits sought by the writ petitioner was based on the relevant provisions of the statute and the rules framed thereunder. There can be no estoppal against the statute. Therefore, if the writ petitioner claims the benefits payable to him as per the statute, the same cannot be said to be illegal. Even assuming the same is unfair, his present claim is only to pay the dues as per the order of the Joint Registrar. So, the third ground also cannot be accepted. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant prays for some time to implement the order of the learned Single Judge. The appellant may move before the learned Single Judge for extension of time. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ps