IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 24034 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ADHYAPAKA, CO.OP.BANK LTD., REP. BY PRESIDENT, HO.PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM-686011. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KERALA STATE CO.OP.EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY PB.NO.85, KALA NIVAS, TC.27/156, 157. CHINMAYA LANE, KUNNUMPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN,SC,K.ST.CO.OP.EMP.PENSION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the details of half pay leave taken by Smt. Indirakutty. Ext.P2. True copy of the details of half pay leave taken by K.N Sadaandan. Ext.P3. True copy of the demand notice dated 24.5.2007. Ext.P4. True copy of the demand notice Ext.P5. True copy of the letter dated 24.6.2008. Ext.P6. True copy of the communication dated 25.3.2008. // true copy// P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.24034 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Co-operative Bank. Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3 to P6. Exts.P3 to P5 are the demand notices issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to remit contribution, in relation to three of its employees. Petitioner disputed its liability and its contentions were overruled by the Board as per Ext.P6. It is in this background the writ petition is filed. 2. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that, Smt. Indira Kutty and Sri. Sadanandan, who were retired on 30.4.2006 and 31.10.2006 respectively, were on half pay leave for considerable period of time, the details of which are indicated in Exts.P1 and P2. It is stated that the Bank's liability to pay contributions is only in respect of pay and D.A actually drawn by these WP(c).No.24034/08 2 employees during the aforesaid period. It is stated that, the contribution demanded is for the full basic pay and D.A which was not paid to the said employees during the aforesaid period. 3. Yet another contention that is raised is that in respect of Sri. K.P. Varghese, Secretary who retired on 31.3.2007, D.A was not paid at the rate that was announced by the Government and therefore the liability of the Bank is only to pay contribution on the D.A at the rate as actually paid to the employee in question. 4. Another contention that is raised is that although the pay of the employees were revised on 22.5.2005, with effect from 1.4.2003, the benefit was not extended in view of the financial constraints of the Bank and therefore the liability of the Bank to pay contribution should be only on the pay that was actually paid and not at the scale of pay as it stood revised. In effect, what is contended is that the liability of the petitioner is to make contribution only on the pay and D.A which were actually paid and not what was payable as per the scale of pay applicable to the employees in question or on the WP(c).No.24034/08 3 rate of the D.A as fixed by the Government. 5. In my view, answer to this contention of the counsel for the petitioner is available in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994. Clause 2(g) of the Scheme defines pay as includes basic pay, special pay, personal pay, dearness allowance and any other amount ordered to be treated as pay such as consolidated pay. Clause(3) providing for establishment of pension fund, provides that they shall be established a pension scheme for payment of pension to the employees of the co-operative society, to which shall be granted a monthly contribution by the Society at the rate of 10% of the pay, as specified in clause 2(g), of each of the employees. Therefore, the liability of the Co-operative Society is to make a monthly contribution of the fund at 10% of the basic pay and dearness allowance as specified in 2(g). As can be seen from Exts.P3, P4 and P5 what is called upon to be paid by the petitioner is the contribution due in terms of clause(3) of the pension scheme reckoned on the basic pay and dearness allowance. In the light of the Rules as above, irrespective of whether the WP(c).No.24034/08 4 petitioner has actually paid basic pay or the D.A as fixed or not, the Society has the liability to pay contribution, reckoning the same on the basis of the basic pay and the D.A. If so, I do not find any irregularity in Exts.P3, P4, P5 or Ext.P6. Therefore the petitioner shall make remittance of the amount in respect of the employees mentioned above, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 6. It is now pointed out that, the petitioner should be extended the benefit as announced by the Pension Board vide Circular 2/2009. The eligibility of the petitioner to avail of the benefit cannot be disputed. Therefore it is directed that, it will be open to the petitioner to quantify the actual dues as per the scheme and Circular 2/2009 and send the same to the Bank within 3 weeks from to day and in which event, respondent shall extent the benefit of the circular to the petitioner. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE WP(c).No.24034/08 5 WP(c).No.24034/08 6