IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 29981 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P. SUKUMARAN, S/O. LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, PUTHIYATTIL HOUSE, CHITTARICKAL, KORATTY SOUTH.P.O, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), MUKUNDAPURAM, TRICHUR. 2. KORATTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KORATTY.P.O, TRICHUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL FOR R2 SRI.DIJO SEBASTIAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ============================== W.P.(C) No.29981 OF 2008(T) ============================== Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was the Secretary of the second respondent society. Audit party raised an objection on 30-1-2007 recommending that an amount of Rs.5,69,010/- with interest for delayed remittance has to be recovered from the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on 31-3-2008. 2. Two issues raised for consideration. 3. The first relates to pension. The audit objection and the recommendation for recovery has no impact on the pension or determination of the quantum of pension. Therefore, the mere fact that the recommendation of the audit party is yet to be finalised by the committee or General Body of the second respondent bank is not a ground for the first respondent to refuse to forward the pension documents in relation to the petitioner. Therefore, the first respondent is liable to forward the pension papers of the petitioner to the Pension Board on receipt of the same from the second respondent. W.P.(C) No.29981/2008 - 2 - 4. The second issue is whether the second respondent society has to be compelled to pay all other retiral benefits. This would, in a way, depend on the decision that the General Body of the second respondent bank may take on the recommendation of the auditor. Going by the second respondent's counter affidavit, its General Body is to meet only in June 2009. But, that counter affidavit apparently indicates that the bank is of the view that the petitioner had loyally and with dedication, discharged his duties and responsibilities while in office. It accordingly states that retiral benefits, which it has to be recommended could be released on the basis of a bond, awaiting the decision of the General Body. This is the proper course of action. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:- (i) The second respondent will issue pension documents and necessary papers to enable the petitioner to draw pension. The first respondent shall, on receipt of the same, forward it to the Pension Board without relying on the factum of the recommendation of the audit party for recovery of amounts W.P.(C) No.29981/2008 - 3 - from the petitioner. The Pension Board shall, in turn, finalise the pension claims of the petitioner and pay the amount, at the earliest. (ii) On the petitioner executing a simple bond, the retiral benefits due to him from the second respondent will be released subject to the General Body decision on the recommendation of the audit party, as contained in Exhibit P1, regarding recovery and amounts stated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit of the second respondent. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Skr/13/11 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.