IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28091 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.SANTHOSH BABU, KONDATTU HOUSE, PLASSANAL.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, P.B.NO.85, KALA NIVAS, CHINMAYA LANE, KUNNUMPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, THE THALAPALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3937, PLASSANAL.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY FOR R3 SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH FOR R3 SRI.P.V.MOHANAN, SC GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.28091/09 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRESIDENT DT 2.8.06. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 20.6.07 OF R. P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DT 25.3.09. P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DT 17.3.2009. P5 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 11.6.09. P6 COPY OF THE REPLY DT 13.7.09 OF R3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A) COPY OF THE ORDER DT 26.5.08. R3(B) COPY OF THE ARC.1082/08 DT 23.6.08. R3(C) COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT 4.7.09. R3(D) COPY OF THE DECISION DT 20.12.09. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge S. SIRI JAGAN, J. `````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 28091 of 2009 F `````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an employee of the third respondent Co-operative Bank. While he was in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for serious misconducts involving misappropriation of money and he was dismissed from service as punishment. On appeal before the appellate authority, the punishment of dismissal was set aside and instead the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily with effect from 04-11- 2005 which is the date of his suspension. The petitioner’s grievance now is that the pension papers of the petitioner has not been forwarded to the second respondent to enable the petitioner to draw pension. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs:- “ (i) a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to forward the duly countersigned pension paper book of the petitioner to the second respondent forthwith. (ii) a writ of mandamus or any other WPC.28091/09 : 2 : writ, order or direction commanding the first respondent to take appropriate action against the Managing Committee of the Thalapalam Service C0-operative Bank Ltd. No.3937 and its Secretary for not complying with the directions of the Joint Registrar in Ext.P1 order and further to see that the 3rd respondent has complied with the directions in Ext.P1 by forwarding the pension paper book of the petitioner to the second respondent.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent, in which the contention raised is that the petitioner has been dismissed from service for misappropriation of money and the Bank has initiated proceedings for recovery of the amounts misappropriated. Substantial part of the amounts has been paid by the petitioner. But, now, the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies, the first respondent herein, has directed the Bank to recover 6% interest on the amounts misappropriated by the petitioner. Therefore, the Bank has filed ARC No.1082/08 before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies(G), Meenachil on 23-06-2008 for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,50,550/- being the 6% interest due on the amounts WPC.28091/09 : 3 : misappropriated by the petitioner. The contention of the third respondent is that since the ARC is pending, the pension papers of the petitioner has not been forwarded. According to them, the petitioner has no other assets to be proceeded against for recovery of the said amount as and when the ARC is disposed of. The contention is that the retention of the pension papers is the only way by which the third respondent can enforce payment of the said amount by the petitioner. 3. I have heard both sides in detail. 4. When pension is not attachable for recovery of amounts due, I fail to understand how the third respondent can legally withhold the pension papers of the petitioner found assuming that the ARC would ultimately be allowed. The pendency of the ARC is not a ground to retain the pension papers. Even otherwise by retaining the pension papers, the third respondent cannot recover the amounts when admittedly the petitioner has no other assets. If the petitioner has no other assets, the only mode of sustenance of the petitioner is the pension due to him. Therefore, I do not find any justification for WPC.28091/09 : 4 : retaining the pension papers of the petitioner by the third respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to forward the pension papers of the petitioner to the second respondent and see that all formalities required for grant of pension to the petitioner required to be complied with by the third respondent are duly complied with. (S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE) aks