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. 16567 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.S.RADHARAMANI, PRATHEEKSHA, VYDHYUTH NAGAR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.S.E.B EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.671, PALAKKAD - 678 014. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PALAKKAD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SR. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.16567 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the Secretary of the first respondent Society. On 15.12.1994 she was terminated. By Ext.P1, the 2nd respondent rescinded the resolution. Appeal filed by the Society was rejected by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P2. First respondent challenged Exts.P1 and P2 before this court in O.P.No.25306/98 and that original petition was dismissed by Ext.P3 judgment. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under. “I feel that the view taken by the Joint Registrar is certainly a plausible view on the facts disclosed in it. At any rate, it cannot be said to be one which is perverse or which no man in his sense will take warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Government rightly upheld the above order of the Joint Registrar by Ext.P7. Therefore, no ground has been made out warranting interference with the Government Order also. WP(c).N.16567/09 2 But having regard to the facts of the case, the society is given liberty to impose any one of the minor penalties on the second respondent in accordance with law, if so advised. This, the petitioner society may do within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” Writ Appeal and the SLP filed against the judgments were also dismissed. Finally by Ext.P4, the first respondent was ordered to reinstate her imposing a penalty of barring of 3 increments with cumulative effect, denying her back wages for the period she was out of service. Against Ext.P4, the petitioner moved the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P5. By Ext.P6 proceedings, the 2nd respondent directed that the period she was kept out of service be treated as duty and that she should also be paid back wages. Against Ext.P6 order, the first respondent filed Ext.P7 appeal resulting in Ext.P8 order by the 3rd respondent directing that the period be counted for pension and gratuity alone and thus denying back wages for the aforesaid period. It is aggrieved by Ext.P8 that this writ petition is filed. WP(c).N.16567/09 3 A reading of Ext.P4 shows that for the period she was out of service till her reinstatement in 2004, the petitioner was denied back wages, but the whole period was ordered to be counted for pension and gratuity. One of the reasons stated for denying the back wages is that the petitioner did not work for the period. However, by Ext.P6 order, without assigning any valid reason, the 2nd respondent ordered payment of back wages also and thus fastened a substantial monetary liability on the society. It is this order which has bee revised in Ext.P8. Admittedly, the petitioner has not worked fr that period and she has been punished for a misconduct. If the back wages is to be paid that will create an unnecessary financial burden on the limited resources of the society. Therefore the view taken in Ext.P8 is a reasonable view and I am not inclined to interfere with the said order. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE WP(c).N.16567/09 4 vi/ WP(c).N.16567/09 5