IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 37399 of 2003(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. B.AMMINIKUTTY AMMA, W/O. LATE K.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, T.C.NO.40/1266, VILAYIL NADUTHATTU VEETTIL, ARUVIKKARA LANE, SREEVARAHAM, MANACAUD P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. A.R.KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O. LATE K.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, T.C.NO.40/1266, VILAYIL NADUTHATTU VEETTIL, ARUVIKKARA LANE, SREEVARAHAM, MANACAUD P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE PMI.K.VINODKUMAR SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SMT.RESMI RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY FOR CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TRIVANDRUM CO-OPERATIVE DISTRICT WHOLESALE SOCIETY LTD. NO.4 (T.C.D.W.S.LTD.NO.4), PUTHENCHANTHAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. THE ADMINISTRATOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CO-OPERATIVE DISTRICT WHOLESALE SOCIETY LTD.NO.4(T.C.D.W.S.LTD.NO.4), PUTHENCHANTHAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.37399/03 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 21.1.97 IN OP NO.1142/97 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P2: THE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.G.1/698/1992-93/97 DT.19.2.97 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPODNENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3: THE TRUE COPY OF the REPRESENTATION DT 3.3.97 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMETN DT 8.1.03 IN OP NO.5922/97(E) IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. EXT.P5: THE TRUE COPY FO THE JUDGMENT DT 7.4.03 IN RP NO.112/03 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.5922/97 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. EXT.P6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 14.5.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENRS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: THE TRUE COPY OF the ORDER NO.EM(3)19639/2003 DT 13.6.03 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P8: THE TRUE OCPY OF THE LTTER NO.EM(3)19639/2003 DT 9.10.03 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIOENRS ADVOCATE, SRI.NANDAKUMARA MENON, ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, WARRIAM ROAD, COCHIN 16. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37399 OF 2003 (B) ===================== Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the legal heirs of one Sri.K.Raveendran Nair, who entered service of the respondent Society on 21/7/64 and retired on 30/6/92 and expired on 15/8/96. In respect of certain monetary claims that the deceased had against the society, pursuant to the order in RP No.112/03 in OP No.5922/97 rendered on 7/4/2003, petitioners moved the 2nd respondent by a representation. 2. Accordingly, notice was issued to both the petitioner and also the Managing Director of the Society and the 2nd respondent rendered Ext.P7 decision, where as against the total claim of the petitioners for an amount of Rs.31,387/-, he directed that the amount of Rs.4,163.15 be disbursed to the petitioners. It is aggrieved by this order, the writ petition is filed. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that on behalf of the petitioners, a statement was filed dealing their claim towards gratuity, arrears of salary, bonus, festival allowance, earned leave surrender and arrears of dearness allowance. WPC 37399/03 :2 : 3. As against this, Bank filed a statement indicating the dues towards gratuity, salary, arrears, security amount and bonus. The claim was considered and the 2nd respondent held that the petitioner is eligible only for Rs.4,163.15/-. 4. A reading of the order shows that the 2nd respondent has not adverted to any of the claims made by the petitioners and on other other hand, upheld the version to be forwarded by the society. Therefore, in my view, there has not been a proper consideration of the claim and for that reason, the matter needs to be reconsidered. 5. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the petitioners may file a fresh representation before the 2nd respondent dealing with their claims with all particulars, in which event, the 2nd respondent shall decide the matter with notice to the 3rd respondent. Having regard to the fact that the claim is a very old one, I direct that final orders shall be passed, at any rate within 8 weeks of receipt of a copy of this representation. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp