IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36288 of 2008(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. P.J.CHACKO, S/O.JOSEPH, PALACKALODY HOUSE, KOKKAD, P.O.ULIKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. E.Y.THOMAS, S/O.YOHANNAN, ELAMPALLOOR PUTHEN VEETTIL, P.O.ULIKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.RAMESH CHANDER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KANNUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), TALIPARAMBA. 4. THE ULIKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.C.107, P.O.ULIKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN 670 705, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. MOHAMMED HASHIM, R4 BY MR. ZAKKIR HUSSAIN, S.C, R5 BY MR.P.V. MOHANAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36288/2008-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. G. 16022/80 (K.DIS) OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KANNUR DT. 27/11/1980. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R.4. BANK DTD. 26/11/2008. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 37/2005 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM DTD. 10/10/2005. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 13/06 OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE R.4. DTD. 21/07/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE R.4. DTD. 21/07/2008. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE R.4. DTD. 05/01/2008. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 2121/08 OF THE R.3 DTD. 30/08/2008. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE R.4. DTD. 16/10/2008. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. PB.PPO.NO.124/KNR OF R.5. DT. 04/03/2005. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.36288 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioners are the former employees of the 4th respondent Bank. First petitioner retired on 29.2.2008 and the 2nd petitioner retired on 31.1.2008, as Branch Managers. The prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct the 3rd respondent to forward the pension papers of the petitioners to the 5th respondent as requested by the 4th respondent in Ext.P9 and to further direct the 5th respondent to order payment of pensionary benefits to them. 2. The reason stated for the delay is that the Bank has forwarded the pension docket to the Joint Registrar, the 2nd respondent and that he in turn has forwarded the papers to the 3rd respondent. It is stated that in terms of clause 27(2) of the 2004 scheme, the 3rd respondent has to make WP(c).No.36288/09 2 recommendations on the proposal received and forward the same to the 5th respondent for further processing the claim of the petitioners. The reason why the 3rd respondent is withholding the pension papers is that there is an on going dispute between the respondents 2 and 3 and the 4th respondent about the status of the Bank, as to whether it falls under class II or class V. 3. The records show that based on the order issued by the Deputy Registrar, as early as on 27.11.1980, the Bank has been treated as class-II Bank and salary and other benefits were being paid on that basis. It is also seen that, on this basis pension contribution also has been made. Petitioners are the beneficiaries of such payment of salary and pension contribution. However, proceedings have been initiated by the Department, on the basis that the 4th respondent is a class V Bank. It is pointed out that, WP(c). No.11682/09 filed by the Bank challenging such proceedings is pending before this court and this court has stayed the order issued by the department reclassifying the Bank. WP(c).No.36288/09 3 4. In my view, the controversy now going on between the department on the one side and the 4th respondent Bank from which the petitioners have retired, can have no impact on the claim of the petitioners for pension on the basis of the pay that they draw while in service. This is for the reason that they were treated as employed in class-II Bank and pension contribution was also made on that basis. Therefore even if the Bank is reclassified, that too subsequent to the retirement of the petitioners and such reclassification will not affect the monetary entitlement of the petitioners. Therefore, there is no reason for the 3rd respondent to withhold pension document of the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to make his recommendations to the 5th respondent along with all other required documents for the 5th respondent to process the pension claim of the petitioners. This shall be done as expeditiously on production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi/ JUDGE WP(c).No.36288/09 4 WP(c).No.36288/09 5