IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1173 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.490/2007 Dated 03/01/2008 .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT NO.1: -------------------------------------------------- MATTANCHERRY SARVAJANIC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3284, COCHIN-1,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/ MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.MATHAI M PAIKKEDAY(SR.) SRI.JOSE THOMAS (PALA) RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- 1. B.S.SANJEEV, APPRAISER, MATTANCHERRY SARVAJANIC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3284, COCHIN-1. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G) ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.G. ANEETHA - R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.P. JACOB - R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.NO.1173 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Writ petitioner in this case was working in the appellant Co-operative Bank as an Appraiser from 19.12.1990 on Commission basis. He had full time work. This Court in W.A.No.1765/2003, noticed that Joint Registrar recommended the regularisation of the appointment of the petitioner and considered all other facts and directed by Ext.A1 judgment to regularsie the services of the petitioner. At paragraph 4 of the judgment it is stated as follows: “4. Circumstances do indicate that the Bank requires assistance of an Appraiser and they are prepared to fill up the post on a regular basis. When there is need for permanent employee sanction need not be withheld, on the plea that the Act and Rules did to lay down qualifications in respect of the Appraiser to be appointed in the W.A.1173/08 2 Co-operative Institution.” However, it was stated that regularisation should be at the discretion of the Bank and by appreciating the nature of the service he was rendering during the past years, they will be able to decide as to the method to compensate him. It is further stated that even if the Registrar did not approve the same, Bank can regularise his service on their own terms. Ext.A1 judgment was appealed against by the Joint Registrar as well as the Government. Bank was the party to the writ appeals also. Again petitioner approached this Court when two posts of Appraiser were notified during the pendency of the writ appeal against Annexure A1 judgment. At that time Registrar by order dated 23.6.2003 directed to regularise the service of the petitioner. Recording the same, Ext.P2 judgment was passed wherein, the order of the Registrar dated 23.6.2003 is quoted as follows: “In obedience to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P.No.220/2003 A dated 23.5.2003, the bank is permitted to regularise the petitioner Sri.B.S.Sanjeev as W.A.1173/08 3 Appraisor in the service of the Bank immediately. The confirmation will be subject to the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court on an appeal filed by Registrar of Co- operative Societies before the Hon'ble High Court. The action taken by the bank should be reported to this office promptly.” The learned Judge thereafter directed to regularise the services of the petitioner as ordered by the Registrar and directed the Bank that only one post of Appraiser alone shall be notified. In that appeal filed against Annexure A1 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in the common judgment dated 14.6.2005, in W.A.Nos.1765/2003 and 667/2004 considered the matter in detail. In the judgment, at paragraph 3 it is observed as follows: “3. It is seen that the Joint Registrar, who recommended the regularisation of appointment of the petitioner, as he was the only person who participated in the interview and was successful also, as can be seen from Ext.P8 communication, filed appeal against such appointment. We see no ground to interfere with the judgment impugned in this writ appeal and therefore W.A.No.1785 of 2003 is dismissed.” W.A.1173/08 4 Meanwhile, this Court directed the bank that only one vacancy can be notified and in paragraph 5, further it is held as follows: “5. Since the petitioner has to be regularised in view of Ext.P3 representation and also of the direction in the impugned judgment in W.P.(C).No.20947 of 2003, the Bank shall make arrangements only to fill up the remaining vacancy of one post of appriaser.” This is an inter party judgment and it is binding on the appellant and on the Joint Registrar. After the above judgment, then the question to be considered was whether petitioner should be regularised from the date of initial engagement on commission basis from 19.12.1990 or on the date when regular post was sanctioned (9.6.1997) or on any subsequent days, and, by Ext.P4, Registrar has decided that the regularisation shall be effected from 9.6.1997, the date on which such a post was regularly sanctioned as per the approved staff strength of the Bank as he was performing the W.A.1173/08 5 work of the Appraiser even before the post was sanctioned. Considering these circumstances, the learned Single Judge held that there is a reasonable and identifiable yardstick for the fixation to 9.6.1997 as the date from which the petitioner is directed to be regularised. We are of the opinion that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The inter party judgment has become final. It is submitted that there was subsequent retrenchment of staff strength due to degradation of the Bank. It is submitted that Bank has challenged that decision of reduction of staff strength. We are not considering the question of retrenchment after the reduction of staff strength. Only question to be decided in this case is regarding the date on which the petitioner is to be regularised. He was not regularised earlier despite requirement because of the absence of a sanctioned post and when the post of Appraiser was sanctioned, Court directed that one post alone can be notified as in one post, petitioner was already working. That finding became final. In these circumstances, the contention of the appellant that he can be regularised only with effect from 23.6.2003 and not from W.A.1173/08 6 9.6.1997 cannot be accepted. We see no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment, and hence, this appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 26th May, 2008