IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 15897 of 2006(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.SARADA, ACCOUNTANT, (RTD), PIRAYIRI KSHEERA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM, PIRAYIRI, ULLATTHIL HOUSE, KONDUNTHIRAPPULLY P.O. PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, PALAKKAD. 2. PIRAYIRI KSHEERA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD.NO.P/.16(D), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIRAYIRI P.O. PALAKKAD. 3. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PIRAYIRI KSHEERA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PIRAYIRI P.O. PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ FOR R2 & R3 SRI.A.V.RAVI FOR R2 & R3 SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY FOR R2 & R3 SRI.K.K.RAVINDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON 13/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the judgment dated 2.12.2003 in writ petition No.20619/03. Ext.P2. True copy of the judgment of the Division Bench dated Ist February, 2006 passed in W.A. No.555/04. Ext.P3. True copy of the representation dated 7.3.2006 receipt of which has been acknowledged by the Secretary of the Society. Ext.P4. True copy of the postal acknowledgment evidencing the receipt of the same by the 3rd respondent by registered post. Ext.P5. True copy of the representation dated10.3.2006, sent t the Ist respondent. Ext.P6. True copy of the postal acknowledgment evidencing the receipt of the same by the Ist respondent. Ext.P7. True copy of the order No.C.589/06 dated 20.3.2006, copy of which was marked to the petitioner. Ext.P8. True copy of the letter dated 25.2.2006 sent by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. Ext.P9. True copy of the representation dated 1.4.2006 preferred by the petitioner to the Ist respondent by registered post. Ext.P10. True copy of the postal acknowledgment evidencing the receipt of Ext.P9 by the Ist respondent. Respondent's Exhibit Ext.R1(a). True copy of the order dated 23.2.2007 in Civil Appeal No.9201/2006 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. // true copy // P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.15897 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT It is stated that the petitioner joined in the service of the 2nd respondent as a Secretary on 3rd October, 1977. Subsequently, she was posted as Accountant. It is stated that while working as Accountant, the society amended its bye-laws revising the age of retirement from 58 to 55 years, which was registered with the first respondent on 22.6.2003. As a result of the amendment, petitioner, who would have served till June, 2006 had to retire from service on 30th of June, 2003. 2. Petitioner's case is that such an amendment was effected to the bye-laws only to ensure that she is out of service, as the 2nd and 3rd respondents were unhappy with the petitioner, for threatening to initiate legal proceedings to get restored her post as Secretary. It is stated that the WP(c).No.15897/06 2 amendment to the bye-laws were challenged before this court in WP(c).No.20619/09, in which by an interim order dated 30.6.2003, this court had ordered that the retirement of the petitioner will be subject to the result of the writ petition. 3. The writ petition was finally dismissed by Ext.P1 judgment. However in WA. No.555/04 filed by the petitioner, a Division Bench of this court set aside Ext.P1 judgment and allowed the writ appeal filed by the petitioner and quashed the amendment to the bye laws reducing the age of retirement. It is stated that, since then representations were made, requesting respondents 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty as an Accountant. Exts.P3 and P5 are the two representations made by the petitioner. No reply was received from respondents 2 and 3, this was in spite of the fact that the first respondent had by Ext.P7 directed the Bank to implement Ext.P2 judgment. 4. Finally, by Ext.P8, the petitioner was informed that the Bank had decided to prefer an appeal against Ext.P2 judgment and on that basis, the Bank declined to implement Ext.P2. Petitioner submits that the Bank had not preferred any appeal WP(c).No.15897/06 3 but at the same time she was not reinstated till she attained the age of superannuation. It is in the above circumstances the writ petition is filed praying that the respondents should be directed to reinstate the petitioner and provide with all consequential benefits, treating the petitioner as having continued in service till the age of retirement. 5. A Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Bank where the respondents states that, though they had filed SLP No.9201/06 against Ext.P2 judgment, the same was dismissed by the Apex Court as per Ext.R2(a) order dated 23.2.2007. As regards the claim of the petitioner for monetary benefits, according to the respondents in view of the principle “no work, no pay”, the petitioner is ineligible for the benefits. 6. As already stated, when the age of retirement of the employees was reduced, petitioner challenged the amendment before this court and by Ext.P2 judgment, the challenge was upheld. If so, the petitioner was entitled to have been reinstated and to continue in service till she attained the age of 58 years. On the other hand, acting upon the amendment, which was subsequently declared illegal by WP(c).No.15897/06 4 this court, the petitioner was forced to retire from service at the age of 55. As a result of Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner ought to have been reinstated in service. Admittedly the Bank refused that and while so the petitioner has also attained the age of 58 years, the normal age of retirement. If that be so, as already this court had recognized the entitlement of the petitioner to have been reinstated in service, this court will not be justified in directing that the petitioner should be reinstated at this distance of time. However, the petitioner should be entitled to all monetary benefits treating her as having continued in service till she attained the age of superannuation. Accordingly, 2nd and 3rd respondents are directed to pay all monetary benefits due to the petitioner, treating her as having continued in the post of Accountant till she attained the age of 58 years. Writ petition is allowed as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.15897/06 5