IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 9020 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- CHANDRAN.C.K, (ACCOUNTANT), VARAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1582, VARAPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.P.P.JACOB, MR.T.P.GOPAKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE VARAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1582, VARAPUZHA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE VARAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1582, VARAPUZHA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. T.A.CHACKOCHAN, ACCOUNTANT, VARAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1582, VARAPUZHA. R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:9020 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Accountant working in the service of the first respondent. He claims seniority over the fourth respondent. According to him, he was appointed on 1.8.1980 as an Attender. Subsequently, he was promoted as Clerk with effect from 1.8.1988. He possesses JDC and SSLC which are the basic qualifications prescribed. From 1991 onwards he was promoted as Accountant. The fourth respondent was appointed in the Society on 1.9.1986 as a Junior Clerk on compassionate grounds invoking Rule 181 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 made by the Government and two years period was granted to acquire the basic qualification of JDC to continue in the post. But he did not acquire the same. The Joint Registrar vide an Administrative Order extended the period for one year. Thereafter the fourth respondent acquired the basic qualifications, i.e in the year 1989. However, as noted above, the petitioner was promoted as a Junior Clerk with effect from 1.8.1988. 2. Though the petitioner and the fourth respondent were promoted as senior clerks in the year 1988, while working as a WPC 9020/2010 2 senior clerk the fourth respondent went abroad taking leave without allowances for the period from 6.5.1999 to 1.5.2001. Since such period would not be counted for seniority, the petitioner claims that he should have been considered as senior to the fourth respondent in the seniority list among the employees. As his claim for seniority was not considered, he has submitted Ext.P1 representation before the first and second respondents. He seeks orders from this Court directing expeditious consideration of Ext.P1. 3. The learned senior Govt. Pleader submits that petitioners 1 and 2 are not statutory authorities and that they do not have a statutory duty to pass orders on Ext.P1 as sought for by the petitioner. The proper course for the petitioner is to pursue his remedies under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore, it is submitted that no directions could be issued by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is true that respondents 1 and 2 are not statutory authorities and that they do not owe a statutory duty to the petitioner to pass orders on Ext.P1. It cannot also be lost sight of that the proper remedy of the petitioner is to move under Section 69 of the Act. However, it is also brought to my notice that a WPC 9020/2010 3 Division Bench of this Court has in the decision reported in Malappuram District Co-op. Bank Employees Welfare Fund Committee {(2001(2)KLT 44} held that where conditions of service of the employees of Co-operative Societies are not implemented by any society, to the extent of enforcing compliance, the High Court can issue appropriate directions in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 7 of the said decision, Sankarasubban, J has observed as follows:- “Thus, we find that, even though a co-operative society cannot be strictly said to be a statutory body, so far as the employees of the societies are concerned, the Act and the Rule envisages certain conditions of service and individual societies have to comply with these conditions. To that extent, it can be said that if the conditions of service is not implemented by any society this court may extent its jurisdiction to see that those rules are performed.” 5. In view of the above dictum, I do not think that there is anything wrong in directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1 that is pending before them. 6. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner in Ext.P1 and to pass appropriate orders thereon in WPC 9020/2010 4 accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in Ext.P1. Such orders as above shall be passed after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as other interested persons. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 9020/2010 5 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: