IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 2152 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35473/2003 DATED 28/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- THE AMBALAVAYAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.7604, AMBALAVAYAL, WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY (ADDITIONAL REGISTER). 2. C.C.CHACKO, SANTHALAYAM, AMBALAVAYA.PO, WAYANAD. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), UNIT AMBALAVAYAL WAYANAD. R1 BY ADV. SRI. P.V. MOHANAN R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.RAMAKRISHNAN R3 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & Antony Dominic, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2152 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. The 2nd respondent was an employee of the appellant. In so far it is irrelevant, on 14.07.1978, on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the 2nd respondent was dismissed from the services of the appellant. An Industrial Dispute was raised on behalf of the 2nd respondent as ID No.43/1979 in which award was rendered by the Labour Court, interfering with the order of dismissal. That award of the Labour Court, Kozhikode was challenged by the appellant in O.P. No.1893 of 1989. The Original Petition was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 31.03.1992. 2. During the pendency of the original petition, pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court, the 2nd respondent was reinstated in service on 21.03.1989. The Original Petition was allowed and aggrieved by the judgment the 2nd respondent filed W.A. No.736 of 1992. During the WA No. 2152 of 2008 -:2:- pendency of that appeal also, on the strength of an interim order, the 2nd respondent continued in service. During the pendency of the writ appeal, he attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.1985 and retired from service. Subsequently, by Ext.P1 judgment rendered on 08.04.2002, W.A. No.736 of 1992 was disposed of confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge but with the following directions: “We dispose of this appeal on the following order:- i) The appellant shall be paid a lump sum amount of Rs.35,000/- as compensation. ii) The period between 14.07.1978 and 21.3.1989 shall be treated as continuous service for the purpose of reckoning all terminal dues of the appellant, such as gratuity and pensionary benefits, if any. The last drawn salary for this purpose would be the salary that the appellant was actually paid on the date of his retirement on 31.08.1995. iii) All monetary benefits available to the appellant under this judgment shall be computed and paid to him, after giving credit to the amount already paid, within a period of three months from today, failing which they shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.” 3. The appellant did not challenge Ext.P1 judgment and thus the directions in the judgment have attained finality. WA No. 2152 of 2008 -:3:- Subsequently, the 1st respondent, constituted under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, made a demand on the appellant to remit a sum of `2,22,961/- towards arrears and interest. It was challenging the said demand, the writ petition was filed. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this writ appeal has been filed by the appellant. 4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the 1st respondent erred in calling upon the appellant to remit an amount of `2,22,961/- which was quantified on the basis that the 2nd respondent had continuous service from the date of his dismissal on 17.04.1978. It is submitted that as against this method of quantification of the dues, the 1st respondent should have quantified the liability, adopting the actual amount of salary received by the 2nd respondent on 31.08.1995 as the basis. 5. However, having considered the contention, we are WA No. 2152 of 2008 -:4:- unable to accept it. This is for the reason that in the judgment from W.A. No.736 of 1992, the relevant portion of which has been extracted above, it can be seen that the Division Bench of this Court has directed that the period from 17.04.1978 onwards shall be treated as continuous service for the purpose of reckoning all terminal dues of the 2nd respondent. It is also clarified that such terminal dues include the Gratuity and pensionary benefits also. This judgment has attained finality. 6. The directions referred to above shows that the service of the 2nd respondent is to be treated as continuous service and therefore, the 1st respondent was justified in quantifying the terminal dues of the 2nd respondent, treating as if he continued in service till he retired on 31.08.1995. We do not find any error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. In so far as the levy of interest is concerned, the learned Judge has rightly pointed out the view taken in Kodukulanji Service Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala [2003(1) KLT 250] and has upheld the same. This view taken by WA No. 2152 of 2008 -:5:- the learned Judge also, in our view, does not warrant interference. In the result, we find no merit in the writ appeal and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. Antony Dominic, Judge. ttb