IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 24826 of 2006(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUNJIRAMAN NAIR, S/O.KANARAN NAMBIAR, VALAPPIL HOUSE, CHENOLIL P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB SRI.B.MANIMOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NADUVANNOOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.1269, NADUVANNOOR (P.O), KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. 3. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P FOR R1 SRI.P.V.MOHANAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True photocopy of the letter issued by pension board to the first respondent dated 31.10.2005. Ext.P2. True photocopy of the statement issued by first respondent to the petitioner. Ext.P3. True photocopy of the statement of salary issued by the first respondent to the petitioner. Ext.P4. True photocopy of the order issued by pension board dated 23.6.2006. Ext.P5. True photocopy of the letter issued by pension board to the Kozhikode DCB dated 23.6.21006. Ext.P6. True photocopy of the payment advise issued by pension board to the Kozhikode DCB dated nil. // true copy// P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.24826 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was an employee of the first respondent Bank. He retired from service on 31.3.2000. By Ext.P1, the 3rd respondent called upon the Bank to remit the contribution in terms of Ext.P7 statement enclosed therein. This was complied with by the Bank and the Bank submitted Ext.P3 working out the average pay of petitioner at Rs.8,105/- and quantified his pensionery benefits at Rs.4,052/-. However, by Ext.P4 petitioner was sanctioned pension of Rs.3,494/-. It is aggrieved by this order that the writ petition is filed. The 3rd respondent contends that in terms of clause 27(3) of the pension scheme, on receipt of a claim, they are entitled to verify the service and pay fixation due to pay revision, promotion, awarding of time bound higher WP(c).No.24826/06 2 grade etc. Based on the records furnished by the Society, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Clerk on 27.6.1983, although he did not possess the required qualification of junior diploma course. It is also pointed out that the petitioner did not get exemption from possession the qualification prescribed. Yet another objection pointed out is that on 1.4.1994 petitioner was given higher grade without obtaining sanction from the Registrar or approval from the authorities. According to the respondents since the promotion of the petitioner as Senior Clerk and the higher grade granted was erroneous, the benefits arising there from are liable to be excluded while the petitioner's pensionery benefits are quantified. It is stated that on this basis his eligibility was assessed and the average pay of the petitioner was worked out at Rs.6,987/- and his pension was fixed at Rs.3,484/-. In view of the contentions thus raised by the 3rd respondent what is necessary to be examined is whether WP(c).No.24826/06 3 the promotion of the petitioner as Senior Clerk on 27.6.1983 was legitimate and whether the higher grade granted to the petitioner on 1.4.1994 was irregular. In so far as the promotion of the petitioner is concerned, admittedly this was given in June, 1983 and therefore petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Rule 201 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. If so, the stand of the respondents that the promotion was irregular is incorrect. Neither in the counter affidavit nor during the course of the submission made, could the 3rd respondent point out any statutory provision requiring sanction or approval of the authorities for giving higher grade. If that be so, objections raised in the counter affidavit in this respect also is incorrect Apart from all this, fact remains that Rule 27(3) relied on by the counsel for the 3rd respondent was introduced in the statute book only with effect from 31.3.2005, which is much after the petitioner retired from service. In the light of all this I see absolutely no justification for limiting the petitioner's WP(c).No.24826/06 4 pension at Rs.3484/- as done in Ext.P4. I declare that the petitioner is eligible for pension at Rs.4052/- as quantified by the Bank in Ext.P2. The benefits due to the petitioner shall be worked out on that basis and the amount that is due shall be released to him, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. . (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.24826/06 5