IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 1388 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12946/2008 Dated 29/05/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- P.T.MOHANDAS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.A.C.RAGHAVAN NAIR, PUTHIYAKALATHIL HOUSE, AYAKKARAPPADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OEPRATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., P.B.NO.55, HEAD OFFICE, TIRUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS - R1 ADV.SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R2 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.P.V.MOHANAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.1388 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 22nd July, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant/petitioner was removed from service as part of disciplinary proceedings. Later, in appeal, removal from service was set aside and it was converted as compulsory retirement. It was observed by the appellate authority as follows: “In the circumstances Sri.P.T.Mohandas, Recovery Officer, The Tirur Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., No.M.11, Tirur is treated to have retired compulsorily from the Tirur Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. No.M.11, w.e.f 30.05.07 A.N. Sri.P.T.Mohandas will execute an indemnity bond in stamp paper worth Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) the cost of which will be met by himself to the effect that the financial loss if any due to the bank assessed against him during the course of audit, inspection, enquiry or other such means shall be recovered from him and that he will refund such losses by himself. Further proceedings of sanctioning of pensionary and other benefits will be taken only after the indemnity bond is executed.” Therefore, punishment of removal from service was altered and the W.A.1388/2008 2 appellant stated to have been retired compulsorily. It is specifically stated in the appellate order that he is entitled to pension. Petitioner was a member of the Co-operative Societies Pension Scheme, 1994. It is a self financing pension scheme unlike the pension given to the Government employees. Eligibility for pension is mentioned under Clause 18 of the Co-operative Societies Pension Scheme which is as follows: “18. Eligibility for Pension.-(1) Every employee of a society to which this Scheme applies shall, subject to the other provisions of the Scheme, be eligible for pension under this Scheme; Provided that an employee, who has received the contributory Provident Fund shall be eligible for pension only on the refund of that portion of the employers' contribution in the Contributory Provident Fund together with interest thereon to the Pension Fund before applying for pension. (2) An employee who has been dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency shall not be eligible for pension; Provided that the authority to impose such penalty may, recommend to the Board to grant compassionate allowance to the employee so dismissed or removed in deserving cases; Provided further that such compassionate allowance shall not exceed two third of the pension which would have been admissible to him, had he retired on the date of dismissal or removal, as the case may be.” W.A.1388/2008 3 Sub-clause (2) shows that if a person is dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, pension can be denied. In this case, petitioner was not dismissed or removed. Termination of service of the petitioner was treated as a compulsory retirement as per the appellate order. In the appellate order, the appellate authority has specifically mentioned that he is entitled to retiral benefits. Petitioner's removal from service was changed into compulsory retirement only to see that he is getting pension from the contributions made by the employer. Here, the employer has also recommended pension. Even under clause 18(2) of the Pension Scheme itself, it is stated that even if a person is dismissed for misconduct, the authority imposing such penalty may recommend the Board to grant pension on compassionate grounds in deserving cases. Here, considering the appellate order, employer's recommendation etc. Registrar should not have issued Ext.P4 and the Registrar has no such power in not forwarding the papers. Hence, Ext.P4 is set aside. The Registrar is directed to forward the papers to the third respondent with all necessary details. The appeal is allowed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks