IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 33651 of 2004(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. V.V.MADHAVA MENON, S/O. GOPALA MENON, AGED 63 YEARS, BINDUPRATHIBHA, FEROOK COLLEGE P.O. 2. S.SANKARANARAYANAN, S/O.KUMARAN NAIR, AGED 66 YEARS, ASWATHY, ARIYOOR P.O., PALAKKAD DT. 3. K.GOVINDAN NAIR, S/O. KESAVAN NAIR, AGED 66 YEARS, PUTHANPURA, UPPUVALLY, AMARAMBALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. O.KUTTYKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.KANNAN NAIR, AGED 66 YEARS, PATHIRIKAT HOUSE, NEDIYIRIP P.O., (VIA) KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DIST. 5. A. ACHUTHAN, S/O. NARAYANA MENON, AGED 66 YEARS, AISWARYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, PERUNTHALMANNA. 6. M.SARADA, W/O. GOVINDA PANICKER, AGED 65 YEARS, LAKSHMI NIVAS, THALAKKASSERY (VIA) THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. V.GOPI, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 66 YEARS, VELATHU HOUSE, PATTAMBI P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MALAPPURAM-5, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND COMMITTEE,MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2 SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN FOR R1 SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN FOR R1 & 2 SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R1 SRI.SANDEEP.E. FOR R1 SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA FOR R1 & 2 SMT.UMA GOPINATH FOR R1 & 2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BINOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 33651/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND RULES DATED 27.08.1991. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF G.O. MS. 133/98 DATED 24.08.1998 EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) 142/98 DATED 08.10.1998 EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.02.1999 EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2001 EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.07.2004 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6346-47/2003 AND CONNECTED CASES. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 33651 OF 2004 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Eligibility to get interest for the inordinate delay in disbursing the benefits under Ext.P1 is the issue involved herein. 2. The sequence of events shows that, the petitioners were working in various capacities in the respondent District Co-operative Bank and all of them retired prior to 10.06.1997. The Government had framed Ext.P1 Welfare Fund Scheme for payment for various benefits to the employees of the District Co-operative Banks including the managerial personnel. Since the benefits payable were not disbursed to the petitioners, they approached this Court by filing OP 10572/1998, which culminated in Ext.P4 judgment directing the respondent Bank to finalise the matter within a period of two months. It appears that the respondent Bank was not at all happy with the above verdict, which made them to approach the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 775/1999 leading to Ext.P5 judgment, directing the Bank to pay the due amount to the concerned persons within three months. Feeling still aggrieved, the respondent Bank approached the Apex Court by filing SLPs and after WPC NO.33651/2004 2 hearing both the sides, the civil appeals were disposed of as per Ext.P6 verdict dated 28.07.2004, making it clear that the due amount shall be paid within three months; simultaneously observing that the points of law decided by the High Court were left open. 3. Despite finalisation of the proceedings as above, the direction aforesaid was not complied with, which led to initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act. Finally, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the principal amount due to the petitioners were disbursed on 04.11.2004; however declining to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum which was actually ordered in other similar cases like OP 10572/1998. The petitioners are before this Court, seeking to issue appropriate directions to the respondent Bank for releasing interest in respect of the delay involved in disbursing the due amount. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits, with specific reference to the contents of the counter affidavit filed from their side that, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners are quite wrong and unfounded; particularly since Ext.P1 Scheme does not contemplate payment of any interest and that the Bank found it very difficult even to satisfy the principal amount. The incapacity to pay because of the adverse/ frustrating pecuniary circumstances is highlighted in the counter affidavit. WPC NO.33651/2004 3 However, the learned counsel fairly concedes that in similar cases, this Court had already issued directions to pay interest at the rate of 12%. A copy of the judgment dated 28.03.2007 in WP(C) 30082/2004 was made available for perusal, from both the sides. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on similar verdicts in WP(C) 402/2005, 33511/2004 and such other cases. 5. The only point now projected before this Court is that, the case of the petitioners stands on a different pedestal, in so far as they were working in managerial posts; whereas the petitioners in 30082/2004 were employees not working in any managerial capacity. But this distinction does not appear to be palatable to this Court, for denying payment of interest, particularly since both the streams of persons are eligible to get the benefits of Ext.P1 Scheme. As it stands so, there is no reasonable classification to drive out the petitioners from the arena and as such, it is declared that the action on the part of the respondent Bank in denying interest to the petitioners in respect of the belated payments is not correct or sustainable. 6. In the above facts and circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay interest on the due amounts paid belatedly to the petitioners, in the same manner as dealt with in similar verdicts passed in WPC NO.33651/2004 4 WP(C) 30082/2004 and connected cases, i.e., by paying interest at the rate of 12% from the date of retirement, till the date of payment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No cost. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc