IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19917 of 2009(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.N.KUTTAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, PAZHOOR KIZHAKKETHIL, NJETTUR, KULANADA, PANDALAM (ATTENDER (RTD) KULANADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK) NOW RESIDING AT ANANDA VILASOM, MULAKUZHA, CHENGANNUR. BY ADVS. MR.P.SREEKUMAR, MR.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR). RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. KULANADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.CS.2133, KULANADA P.O., PANDALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE PRESIDENT, KULANADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KULANADA P.O., PANDALAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOZHENCHERRY. R1 BY ADV.MR.P.V.MOHANAN,SC,K.ST.CO.OP.EMP.PENSION BOARD R2 & R3 BY ADVS. MR.SAJJU.S., MR.K.SHAJ, MR.L.RAJMOHAN. R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.19917/2009 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT DTD. 24/09/2008. P2: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 24/10/2008. P3: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DTD. 24/10/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.19917 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retired employee of the second respondent, bank. He retired on 31.5.2007 as an Attender. It is the case of the petitioner that he had joined service on 1.8.1975 as a Peon. According to the petitioner, though he was eligible to receive monthly pension, he has not been granted pension till date. He relies on Ext.P1 proceedings of the Verification Officer, wherein it has been found that he is entitled to a monthly pension of Rs.5310/- and a family pension of Rs.2605/-. The petitioner further submits that an amount of Rs.2,05,344/- had to be remitted by the bank to the pension fund so as to enable the disbursement of pension to him. Though the first respondent Board had directed the bank to deposit the said amount, only an amount of Rs.58,492/- was deposited. The balance amount is still remaining unpaid. It is stated that it is due to financial problems of the bank that payment has not been made. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Wpc 19917/2009 2 retired employee who has no income of his own, who is struggling in his old age to make both ends meet. Therefore, according to the counsel, there is no justification for non payment of pension to him. 3. Adv.P.V.Mohanan, who appears for the first respondent submits that though the Verification Officer had fixed the total pension fund contribution to be paid by the bank at Rs.2,05,344/-, the bank had remitted only an amount of Rs.58,492/-. The balance amount has not been remitted by the bank till date. Though the first respondent Board has the power under paragraph 38 of the Co-operative Society's Pension Scheme, 1994, coercive steps were not initiated against the bank for the reason that the Government had granted a remission in interest from 24% to 12% by G.O.No.71/09/Co.op dated 5.2.2009. The period of the said G.O was further extended upto 30.11.2009 by another G.O dated 27.10.2009. However, since the remission in interest has not been further extended, there is no impediment in initiating coercive steps against the bank for recovery of the contribution due. 4. Since the entitlement of the petitioner for pension is not in Wpc 19917/2009 3 dispute, the contention that the same is not paid because the employer bank has not remitted its contribution to the Pension Board is not fully justified. Though it is true that there was an order of remission issued by the Government, in force, the action for recovery of the amount that was not paid could have been initiated by the Board. The petitioner, being a person who has retired, would certainly be finding it difficult to maintain himself without any income, in his old age. Therefore, the first respondent Board has the duty to exercise its powers under paragraph 38 of the Pension Scheme to recover the amount of contribution due from the second respondent bank and to disburse the pension amount that is due to the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner has retired in the year 2007, action has to be taken in the matter with utmost urgency. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to issue necessary orders under paragraph 38 of the Co-operative Pension Scheme, 1994 to recover the amount of contribution that is due and payable by the second respondent bank and to finalise all the steps for disbursement of the amount of pension to the Wpc 19917/2009 4 petitioner without further delay. The formalities necessary for the above purpose shall be completed and pension shall be disbursed to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk