IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 33650 of 2007(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.V.SUMANGALA BAI, TYPIST, COCHIN CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), TRICHUR. 3. COCHIN CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.329, CIVIL LANE, ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN - R1 & R2, ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN - R3, ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR - R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.33650/2007-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.1. DTD. 09/07/1994. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE STAFF LIST OF THE BANK. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.2. DTD. 21/03/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R.1. DTD. 30/01/2007. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.1 8/06/2007. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/09/2005 OF THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33650 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an employee of the third respondent. She complained to the Joint Registrar regarding the failure of the employer to extend certain pay revision benefits introduced in 2005. However, in considering that representation, the first respondent Registrar found that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit that she got in 1993 and thereby ordered adjustments and refund. This action led to the exemption granted in Ext.P6 from being held up. However, the petitioner has not been heard in relation to any of these matters. Learned Government Pleader does not dispute the facts abundantly show that no decision could have been taken adverse to the interest of the petitioner, as has been done, or by rejecting the claim made by her, without hearing her. WPC.33650/07 Page numbers In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned orders are quashed and it is directed that the Registrar will re-consider and take a decision de novo, after hearing the petitioner and the third respondent. Let this be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.16/6.