IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38125 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.J.CHACKO, ASST. SECRETARY, KADAVUR SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. NO. 1882, KADAVOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF THE KADAVUR SCB LTD. NO. 1882, KADAVOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES (G), ERNAKULAM. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 & R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 1652 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sks/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.38125/2008-L & 1652/2009-V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner, an employee of the first respondent, a co-operative bank, was placed as its Assistant Secretary in terms of resolution dated 25-8-2006 and was in charge of Secretary from 13-10-2001. By Ext.P1, the committee of the society decided to apply for regularisation of his educational qualifications. That was forwarded to the Joint Registrar on 11-9-2006. In 2008 September, the petitioner moved this Court stating that the request for regularization is still pending consideration before the Joint Registrar, without orders. WP(C).27099/2008 was ordered on 5-9-2008 directing that the matter may be decided upon. Pending consideration of that, the society issued a communication to the petitioner asking him to pay back amounts enjoyed WP(C)38125/08 & 1652/09 -: 2 :- by him in terms of the promotion and also certain amounts of over-drawals. WP(C).38125/2008 is filed on the premise that the said situation was created by the Joint Registrar not deciding the matter of exemption within time. Pending that writ petition, the Joint Registrar rejected the request for exemption. That is impugned by the petitioner in WP(C).1652/2009. 2.In so far as the society is concerned, it had resolved in 2006 to apply for exemption of the petitioner from educational qualifications. On 19-12-2008, the Joint Registrar has refused to grant that exemption. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had been discharging duties and responsibilities attached to the office of the Assistant Secretary or the Secretary, as the case may be, with intermittent orders of suspension, dismissal etc. 3.The scenario, therefore, requires for consideration as to whether the petitioner is WP(C)38125/08 & 1652/09 -: 3 :- entitled to the amounts which the society has now recalled. If the petitioner had discharged his duties and responsibilities attached to the office to which he was promoted, his entitlement to remuneration for the work done cannot be denied. But, if there were over-drawals as contended by the society, i.e., on account of drawal of salary even during the period covered by suspension, without regularizing the period of suspension, all such matters have to be taken care of while adjusting the total amount that may be due to the petitioner. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the society that certain other amounts were also over-paid. 4.Be that as it may, the impact of the decision of the Joint Registrar refusing to approve the suggestion of the society to grant exemption from educational qualification would entitle only to be at least the re-positioning of the petitioner in the hierarchy of the establishment. WP(C)38125/08 & 1652/09 -: 4 :- 5.The decision of the Joint Registrar issued on 19-12-2008 is one against which the petitioner has a statutory remedy by way of appeal or revision, as the case may be, either to the Registrar or the State Government, in terms of the KCS Act. In view of the availability of that remedy, I do not find any extra-ordinary circumstance to entertain this writ petition challenging that decision before this Court without recourse to statutory remedy. It is also necessary that a statutory authority hears the society and the petitioner to finalise the total amounts that may be due to the petitioner in the light of what is stated above on reconciliation of the accounts between the petitioner and the society in the event of the decision of the Joint Registrar being affirmed by the superior authorities. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the demand made by the society against the petitioner to return the amounts will stand suspended and the WP(C)38125/08 & 1652/09 -: 5 :- petitioner, if so advised, will challenge the decision of the Joint Registrar before the competent authority at the earliest. Such authority will consider the correctness of the decision of the Joint Registrar, as also the question of the total amounts that may be due to the petitioner either way, in the light of what is stated above. The demand made by the society against the petitioner will then stand regulated by such decision. In the fitness of things, it is appropriate that such procedure is concluded within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that the society and the petitioner will be given sufficient opportunity of hearing. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/100209