IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 19770 of 2007(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- G.THOMAS, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 55 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR CLERK, AMBALATHUMBHAGOM SERVICE, CO.OP.BANK LTD.NO.2836, AMBALATHUMBHAGOM P.O. PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM DIST. AND RESIDING AT CHARUVILAKIZHAKATHIL, EDAKKADU, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, KUNNATHU TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOLLAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SASTHAMCOTTA. 5. THE AMBALATHUMBHAGOM SERVICE CO.OP.BANK LTD.NO.2836, AMBALATHUMBHAGOM P.O., PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM DIST, REP: BY SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.K.DIVAKARAN NAIR FOR R5 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.SANILKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.19770/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.GO(P) NO.220/05/CO-OP DTD 23.5.2005 W.E.F. 1.4.2004. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 27.4.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.726/06 DT 6.1.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF PROMOTION ORDER DT 12.4.2007. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 27.4.2007 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPROT DT 10.8.2006. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.3663/06 DT 10.11.2006. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19770 OF 2007 (C) ===================== Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an employee of the 5th respondent, a Co- operative Bank. While working as Senior Clerk, by Ext.P1, the 1st respondent introduced revision of scale of pay of employees in the Co-operative sector. However, the benefit of Ext.P1 pay revision was not extended to the petitioner and he made representations to the Board of Directors and also to the Assistant Registrar. That resulted in Ext.P3, where he was told that there was a criminal case pending against him and although he was exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, in view of the pendency of the criminal case he cannot be extended the benefit of Ext.P1 pay revision. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner has also produced Ext.P4, an order passed by the Bank promoting him subsequently as an Internal Auditor. He has also produced Ext.P5, a representation made by him to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, which also did not evoke any response. WPC 19770/07 :2 : 3. As already seen, in Ext.P3, the only reason stated by the Assistant Registrar for declining the petitioner the benefit of pay revision implemented by Ext.P1 is the pendency of a criminal case. It would appear that in relation to acceptance of certain gold ornaments in the Bank, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly charge sheet was issued, an enquiry was conducted by an enquiry officer and Ext.P6 is the report submitted by the enquiry officer. A reading of Ext.P6 show that there was no evidence to find the petitioner guilty and accordingly, he was exonerated of the charges. It was only thereupon that the petitioner who was kept under suspension was reinstated and it is on that basis he is continuing in service even now. 4. Subsequently, a criminal case was got registered, in which, still later, the petitioner was also arrayed as an accused. That criminal case was stayed by Ext.P7 order passed by this Court and it is submitted that the trial is going on. 5. Irrespective of the pendency of the criminal case, fact remains that the petitioner has been reinstated and is discharging his duties. If that be so, he is entitled to be paid wages treating WPC 19770/07 :3 : like any other similar employee and there is absolutely no justification for declining the benefit of Ext.P1. Apart from the pendency of the criminal case, none of the respondents could also point out any provision of law justifying the stand taken in Ext.P3. In such circumstances, I cannot uphold Ext.P3 and Ext.P3 therefore will stand set aside. 6. Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of Ext.P1 pay revision to the petitioner as in the case of other employees of the Bank. Needful shall be done, as expeditiously as possible and arrears shall be released within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp