IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5783 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- COIRFED EX-EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, JEW TOWN, KOCHI-682 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.N.VRINDAVANAN. BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF COIR DEVELOPMENT, COIR BHAVAN, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.(COIRFED), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. R1 TO R3 BY G.P SRI K C SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 5783 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT The 4th respondent represented through the Standing Counsel. Respondents 1 to 3 represented by learned Government Pleader. 2. Petitioner is a registered association of the former employees of Coirfed, an Apex Co-operative Society. They voiced their grievance that the Self Financing Pension Scheme under the Co-operative Laws is not made applicable to Coirfed employees and that this results in undue agony and miscarriage of justice. They have placed on record the copies of different representations made by the members of the petitioner collectively or otherwise. 3. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate that the Government considers the request of the members of the petitioner and for that purpose, the matter could be concluded by affording an opportunity of hearing to one among the members of the petitioner, who may choose to represent the petitioner. The 4th respondent has, obviously, also to be heard. The views of the WP(C) 5783/2009 2 Pension Board may also be relevant to secure expeditious consideration of the request contained in Ext.P1 to P4. It is ordered that the petitioner, through its chosen representative, will mark appearance before the first respondent who will do the needful, viz, listing the matter for consideration and ensure that appropriate decision is taken at the competent level in the Government. Taking into consideration the matter involved, it is appropriate that the Government expedites the issue and renders a decision at the earliest, at any rate, within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/25/2