IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9609 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SECRETARY,IVERKALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,IVERKALA EAST.P.O,KUNNATHOOR,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SOORANAD S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM. 2. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KERALA PAYMENT OF SUBSISTANCE ALLOWANCE AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,COLLECTORATE,KOLLAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER,KUNNATHOOR,KUNNATHOOR.PO., KOLLAM. 5. MRS.SHYNI.K.R,W/O.P.PRASAD,KUTTIYIL VEEDU,IVERKALA EAST.P.O,KUNNATHOOR-691 507. R1 TO R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL R5 BY ADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL, SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.9609/2010 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM & DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. P2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER AS PER THE ORDER OF 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT OF IVERKALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.34/106 DTD. 24/11/06 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) SASTHAMCOTTAH. P6: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF IVERKALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A): COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 08/05/2006. R5(B): COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DTD. 17/10/2006. R5(C): COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.22/6/2009. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.9609 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the coercive steps against the petitioner-Society, whereby the subsistence allowance ordered to be paid to the 5th respondent is sought to be realised. A review petition is stated as preferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the 5th respondent is not entitled to get any benefit as her posting itself was wrong and illegal and that she was given appointment by none other than her husband who was the President and Secretary in Charge of the Society at the relevant point of time. It is also stated that since the appointment is wrong and illegal, the same was put an end to, which made the 5th respondent to file a petition seeking for subsistence allowance, which was allowed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits. This necessitated to file a review petition through the lawyer of the petitioner on 7.2.2010 and the learned counsel submits that said proceeding is still pending which is sought to be finalized without any further W.P.(C). NO.9609 OF 2010 2 delay by filing Ext.P1 representation on 17.3.2010, simultaneously requesting the authority concerned to keep all recovery proceedings in abeyance till such time. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submits with reference to the counter affidavit filed in this case, that the petitioner has chosen to challenge Ext.P5(c) order dated 22.6.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby subsistence allowance has been ordered to be paid by the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel submits that without raising any challenge against Ext.P5(c), which in turn has become finalised, the prayer in the writ petition is not sustainable and the recovery proceedings are not liable to be intercepted. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that the averments and allegations raised by the petitioner are contrary to the actual facts and figures and that Ext.R5 (a) dated 8.5.2006 was actually issued by the then President by name Shri. M.Mohanan, whereas the husband W.P.(C). NO.9609 OF 2010 3 of the petitioner is one Shri. Prasad. Referring to Exts.P5 and P6 proceedings produced along with I.A No.4810 of 2010, the learned counsel of the 5th respondent also submits that Ext. R5(c) order was passed by 2nd respondent very much after hearing the petitioner as well. But since there is a specific case for the petitioner that review petition is pending before the 2nd respondent against R5(c), which is sought to be executed by filing Ext.P1 representation, simultaneously requesting to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance, this Court finds that the matter requires to be finalised by the 2nd respondent passing appropriate orders in the review petition. 5. In the above circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in the review petition stated as filed by the petitioner and pending before the said respondent, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent and at the earliest; at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The recovery W.P.(C). NO.9609 OF 2010 4 proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till such time. If no review petition is pending, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with further steps from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. mns