High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition dismissed.
C. SETHUMADHAVAN and others v. THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD and others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- ANIL K.NARENDRAN
- Judgment Date
- 2018-09-07
- Court Decision / Holding
- The petition is dismissed. The court notes that the Division Bench’s 25.05.2018 verdict in W.A.No.1222/2017 and connected cases allows arrears for 01.07.2002 to 30.06.2003 but denies interest to all except the W.P.(C).No.34683/2009 bracket; the petitioners filed this writ petition belatedly (18.07.2018) with no explanation for the delay, and the court declines extraordinary relief under Article 226 to extend the benefit. The court cites no grounds to depart from the established laches/ delay doctrine and aligns with the reasoning that relief for the arrears cannot be equitably extended on delay, thereby dismissing the petition.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition dismissed.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- C.SETHUMADHAVAN
- K.M.VARGHESE
- T.S.VELAYUDHAN
- T.M.MARYKUTTY
- M.VIJAYAKUMAR
- P.O.MARY
- T.CHANDRIKA
- K.R.JOY
- E.M.UNNIKRISHNAN
- K.K.RATNAM
- C.A.DARLY
- U.J.JOSEPH
- C.P.VALSALA
- P.C.ARUJUNAN
- K.P.GEETHA
- A.A.RAHDAKRISHNAN
- A.R.VIJAYAN
- K.G.RAMANUNNY
- K.KARTHIKEYAN
- JAMEELA.P.K.
- A.R.VISWANATHAN
- K.R.RAVI
- P.P.PUSHPAM
- T.K.ABDULHAMEED
- SHAILAJE.N.N.N
- N.K.SHEELA
- M.A.VINCENT
- C.S.VIJAYALAKSHMY
- P.B.SUMA
- V.K.SURESAN
- K.K.PADMAVATHY
- VASANTHI.M.K.
- M.A.ANIIE
- A.K.SUBRAMANIAN
- K.K.ROSY
- A.K.AUGUSTINE
- P.RAMAN
- P.RAVEENDRAN
- M.K.MOHANDAS
- C.O.JOHNSON
- C.A.DAISY
- VALSA JOS
- M.S.SABEENA
- JANAKY.V.K.
- MAGGIE KOOLA L.
- A.A.NANDAKUMARY
- C.R.GANGADEVI
- ROSY.C.D.
- K.V.SATHY
- V.R.SANTHAKUMARY
- C.V.LALITHA
- P.BHANUMATHY
- K.A.MARY
- T.R.SHAILA
- A.SAVITHRI
- P.D.PAUL
- P.A.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY
- T.RAMACHANDRAN
- V.M.VANSATHY
- ROSILY P.P.
- C.SATHY
- C.S.OUSEPH
- K.J.BASHEER
- P.K.SUGATHAN
- P.V.VIJALALAKSHMY
- P.G.SUSHAMA
- K.A.VIJAYAN
- C.N.GOVINDANKUTTY
- U.K.PUSHPALATHA
- K.K.SASIDHARAN
- T.J.THOMAS
- T.B.SURIAN
- P.BALACHANDRAN
- SARAMMA MATHEW
- M.P.SUSHAMADEVI
- K.E.PARUKUTTY
- C.S.RAMANKUTTY
- K.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
- K.VANAJAKUMARI
- R.KUMARADAS
- C.G.SAVITHRI
- VARGHESE.R.ALAPPATT
- BABY MATHEW
- V.N.KAIRALI
- K.A.SANKARANARAYANAN
- O.M.PYLEE
- T.P.ANTO
- N.V.SUSEELA
- C.C.NANDANAN
- T.M.VASUDEVAN
- T.K.INDIRA
- M.SARALADEVI
- P.K.MEERABAI
- K.J.SUNNY
- U.G.HARIHARAN
- K.L.DAVIS
- K.A.UMMERKUNJI
- V.O.THOMAS
- P.K.INDIRA
- P.J.VELUKUTTY
- A.P.DEVASSY
- K.S.PRABHAKARAN
- P.K.RAVINDRAN
- P.B.SIMON
- N.M.PRASANNA
- C.P.ROSILY
- V.VASUMATHY
- P.F.MARIYAMMA
- C.R.LEELA
- C.K.ARUMUGHAN
- E.A.ABDULKAREEM
- K.UNNIKRISHNAN
- E.SANTHAKUMARI
- NALINI VELAPPAN.P.
- A.K.NALINI
- V.M.JALAJAMANI
- K.RAJENDRAN
- C.K.VASANTHA
- N.V.KAMALAM
- T.K.VENUGOPALAN
- K.R.NALINI
- JALAJAKUMARY.V.B.
- P.SASEENDRA
- V.K.MOHANAN
- M.V.SADANANDAN
- P.S.BALAKRISHNAN
- P.RADHAKRISHNAN
- V.R.NARAYANAN
- T.K.PRATHAPAN
- K.K.MOLLY
- M.M.SUBAIDABI
- V.V.KOCHUPAUL
- A.R.ASOKAN
- P.NANDINI NAIR
- K.K.RAMANI
- T.NANIKUTTY
- RAMANI P.RAJA
- P.K.KRISHNANKUTTY
- K.V.THANKAMANI
- JAMES CHIRAYATH.F.
- P.V.BINA
- P.U.VALSALA
- T.M.ALPHONSA
- B.A.SATHY
- SNEHALATHA.M.P.
- P.SATHIAN
- SHAILA K.M.
- E.K.SASIDHARAN
- M.G.SIVADASAN
- VARGHESE.K.A.
- C.K.SANTHA
- V.S.SANUJA
- K.S.AYYAPPAKUTTY
- R.PEETHAMBARAN
- K.R.ROSY
- C.V.SATHIABHAMA
- E.A.BABY
- M.C.AMMINI
Respondents
- The Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.60, represented by its General Manager, Head Office, Thiruvambady P.O., Thrissur District, Pin - 680 022
- The Part-Time Administrator, Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd., No.60, Head Office, Thrivambady P.O., Thrissur District, Pin - 680 022
- The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001
- State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Cooperation (C) Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • V.G. ARUN
- • T.R. HARI KUMAR
Counsels for Respondents
- • S.C SASIDHARAN
- • P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a Article 226 petition filed by 158 retired employees of the Thrissur District Co-operative Bank challenging Ext.P3 Government Order dated 20 March 2007 and seeking arrears of salary for the pay revision period 01 July 2002 to 30 June 2003 with interest, based on the pay revision already effected by Ext.P1 (21 June 2005). The petition asserts that the beneficiaries of the pay revision were extended relief in W.A. No. 1222 of 2017 and connected cases, and the period of arrears (01.07.2002 to 30.06.2003) should be paid with interest, without delay. The respondents press that the petition is barred by delay and laches; they rely on Supreme Court and Kerala decisions including Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, Shri Hanuman Industries, State of Punjab v. Balkaran Singh, and Viswanathan v. Haripad Service Co-op Bank to deny relief or interest, emphasizing that relief in service matters is subject to well‑established exceptions for delay. The Division Bench’s 25 May 2018 judgment in W.A.No.1222 of 2017 and connected cases held that such arrears could be granted but with nuanced treatment of interest. The Kerala High Court, however, dismisses the present writ petition for delay without extending relief, noting no justification for belated approach and aligning with the principle that delays bar relief except in limited circumstances. The petition is thus dismissed.
Provisions of Law Cited
Constitution of India, Article 226Constitution of India, Article 14
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Doctrine of laches
- Doctrine of acquiescence
- Equality under Article 14
- Judgment in rem vs. judgment in personam
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that Ext.P3 (20.03.2007) denies arrears for the pay revision period 01.07.2002 to 30.06.2003 despite the pay revision already being implemented; they rely on the Division Bench’s May 2018 ruling in W.A.No.1222/2017 and connected cases that the 01.07.2002 to 30.06.2003 arrears be disbursed, extending pay revision benefits to all similarly situated employees and that delay or laches should not bar relief since the claim concerns a continuing right to salary arrears; they seek mandamus to pay arrears and to declare entitlement within a time frame. The petition also points to notional interest on arrears and prays for extension of Ext.P4 judgment outcomes to all petitioners.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents oppose relief on grounds of delay and laches arguing that the petitioners failed to challenge Ext.P3 promptly; they rely on Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Shri Hanuman Industries to emphasize the distinguished exceptions for delay and inaction, and contend that the relief should be granted only to those who moved timely; they emphasize the need to avoid disturbing settled rights of third parties and maintain that the petitioners have not established a continuing wrong that overrides earlier final decisions.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. Tarsem Singh | 2009 (1) KLT 101 (SC) | Positive | Cited for the proposition that relief in service matters based on continuing wrong can be available despite delays, and that interest on arrears may be declined. |
| Arvind Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India | Not provided | Positive | Cited for the normal rule that similarly situated employees should be treated alike, with exceptions for laches, delays and acquiescence. |
| Viswanathan v. Haripad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. | 2018 (3) KLT 815 | Positive | Division Bench held that postponement of pay revision arrears does not affect entitlement. |
| Union of India v. Shri Hanuman Industries | 2015 SCC 600 | Positive | Cited for the principle that deliberate laches can disentitle claimants. |
| State of Punjab v. Balkaran Singh | (2006) 12 SCC 709 | Positive | Cited in context of policy-related judgments and disposal of continuing rights. |
| K.C. Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India | Not provided | Mentioned Only | Referenced in relation to discussion on judgments in rem vs in personam and extension of benefits. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against C. SETHUMADHAVAN and others v. THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN**
**FRIDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 16TH BHADRA, 1940**
## **WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
- **1 C.SETHUMADHAVAN AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.KARTHIYANI AMMA,CHEMBAKASSERY HOUSE, P.O.EYYAL, (VIA) KACHERY,THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 501.**
- **2 K.M.VARGHESE AGED 66 YEARS, KUTTIKKATT HOUSE,P.O.ARANATTUKARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 501.**
- **3 T.S.VELAYUDHAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN,THEKKEPAT HOUSE, P.O.MULLASSERY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 509.**
- **4 T.M.MARYKUTTY AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.THANKACHAN,THANICKAL HOUSE, KANAKADHARA LANE,P.O.KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 006.**
- **5 M.VIJAYAKUMAR AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.P.K.MADHAVAN NAIR,MALIACKAL HOUSE, P.O.NEELAI,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 305.**
- **6 P.O.MARY**
- **AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.ANTONY PAUL.A.,ADAMBUKULAM HOUSE, P.O.AMMADAM,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 575.**
## **7 T.CHANDRIKA**
**AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.LATE RAMAN NAIR,VADAKKEMEPPURATH HOUSE, PERINGAVU,P.O.CHEROOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 501.**
**8 K.R.JOY AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.K.K.ROCKY,PUDUSSERY KATTALAN HOUSE, POTTA VILLAGE,CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 307.**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**2**
- **9 E.M.UNNIKRISHNAN AGED 70 YEARS, EDAMUTTATH VEEDU, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 581.**
- **10 K.K.RATNAM AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.RAMESH CHANDRAN,PAYATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.MADAKKATHARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 651.**
- **11 C.A.DARLY AGED 69 YEARS, W/O.E.R.THOMAS,EMMATTY HOUSE, EAST FORT,THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 68005.**
- **12 U.J.JOSEPH AGED 60 YEARS, URUVATH HOUSE,P.O.ELTHURUTHU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 611.**
- **13 C.P.VALSALA AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.GEORGE,KARIPRA HOUSE, P.O.IRINAJALKUDA NORTH,SNEHABHAVAN SIDE ROAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 125.**
- **14 P.C.ARUJUNAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.CHAKKAPPAN,PARANVEETIL HOUSE, OPP.YAMUNA THEATRE,P.O.PERINJANAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 686.**
- **15 K.P.GEETHA AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.T.K.ARAVINDAKSHAN,THOPPIL HOUSE, 'ASIRWAD', KARIATTUKARA,P.O.ELTHURUTHU, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 611.**
- **16 A.A.RAHDAKRISHNAN AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN,ATTUVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.PERAMANGALAM,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 545.**
- **17 A.R.VIJAYAN AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN EZHUTHASSAN,AMMANATH HOUSE, PLOT NO.18, SILK HOUSING COMPLEX,P.O.PERINGANDOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 581.**
- **18 K.G.RAMANUNNY AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAKURUP,KALARIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KATTOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 702.**
- **19 K.KARTHIKEYAN**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**3**
**AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHA MENON,THONIYIL HOUSE, P.O.KONATHUKUNNU,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 662.**
- **20 JAMEELA.P.K. AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.P.R.HARSHAN,PULIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KOORKKANCHERY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 007.**
- **21 A.R.VISWANATHAN AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN EZHUTHASSAN,AMMANATH HOUSE, P.O.MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 581.**
- **22 K.R.RAVI AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.RAVINAMBOODIRI,KAVANATTUMANA, VINOD BHAVAN, KOMBARA WEST,P.O.IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 121.**
- **23 P.P.PUSHPAM AGED 65 YEARS, KOLLANNUR HOUSE,PONGANAMKADU, P.O.KURICHIKKARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 028.**
- **24 T.K.ABDULHAMEED AGED 65 YEARS, "GAZELS", PUNCHAPARAMBU,P.O.KONATHUKKUNNU, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 123.**
- **25 SHAILAJA.E.N.N.N AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,MANKARA HOUSE, P.O.KOTHAPARAMBU, ALA,KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 668.**
- **26 N.K.SHEELA AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.K.B.RADHAKRISHNAN,KUTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KOTHAPARAMBU,KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 668.**
- **27 M.A.VINCENT AGED 60 YEARS, MANJALI HOUSE,P.O.VARAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 323.**
- **28 C.S.VIJAYALAKSHMY AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.HARIDAS,'HARIPRIYA', P.O.BLANGAD,CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 506.**
- **29 P.B.SUMA AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.MOHANDAS,KALATHIL HOUSE,**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**4**
**P.O.THIRUVATHRA,CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 511.**
- **30 V.K.SURESAN**
- **AGED 66 YEARS, VELLUNNIPARAMBIL HOUSE,THANIPADAM, CHUVANNAMANNU P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 652.**
- **31 K.K.PADMAVATHY AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.LATE E.K.SUBRAMANIAN,EDAKKATTTIL HOUSE, P.O.ANTHIKAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 641.**
- **32 VASANTHI.M.K.**
- **AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.K.N.SASIDHARAN,KURUMBEPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM P.O.,PANOKKARAN ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 027.**
- **33 M.A.ANIIE**
- **AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS A.N.J.,NELLISSERY HOUSE P.O.VALAPPAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 567.**
- **34 A.K.SUBRAMANIAN AGED 66 YEARS, ARATH HOUSE,EDAKALATHUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 552.**
- **35 K.K.ROSY**
- **AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.JOY,MANIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.VADOOKKARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 007.**
- **36 A.K.AUGUSTINE**
- **AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUVAREED,ALAPPATT HOUSE, THEKKUMOOLA, P.O.KATTOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 702.**
- **37 P.RAMAN AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.PARUKUTTY AMMA,POOKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.PULLAZHY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 012.**
- **38 P.RAVEENDRAN AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.PARUKUTTY AMMA,PUTHENPURA HOUSE, P.O.MUPLIYAM,PUDUKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 312.**
- **39 M.K.MOHANDAS AGED 66 YEARS, MUMBUVEETTIL HOUSE,PERINJANAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 686.**
- **40 C.O.JOHNSON**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**5**
**AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH,CHIRAMEL HOUSE, VENGINISSERY,P.O.PARALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 563.**
- **41 C.A.DAISY AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.VARGHESE R.ALAPPAT,ALAPPAT HOUSE, PALACE ROAD,CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 307.**
- **42 VALSA JOS AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.P.K.JOS,PALLAN HOUSE, FRIENDS ENCLAVE,P.O.CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 006.**
- **43 M.S.SABEENA AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.T.K.RAVIKUMAR,"KAMALAM", THANDASSERY HOUSE, PUTHURKKARA,P.O.AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 003.**
- **44 JANAKY.V.K. AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.SURENDRAN,THALAKKATTIL HOUSE, 'SHINE NIVAS,PUTHURKKARA,P.O.AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 003.**
- **45 MAGGIE KOOLA L. AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.JOY ANTONY,THANDASSERY HOUSE, S.N.PARK,P.O.POOTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 004.**
- **46 A.A.NANDAKUMARY W/O.GOPINATHAN, MACHINGAL HOUSE,PERUMANNU, KECHERY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 501.**
- **47 C.R.GANGADEVI AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.MUKUNDAN,KAREKKATT HOUSE, P.O.KATTOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 702.**
- **48 ROSY.C.D. AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.P.T.DAVIS,PADAMADAN HOUSE, KOODAPUZHA,MECHERY OIL MILL ROAD,P.O.CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 690 307.**
- **49 K.V.SATHY AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.LINU,PADINJATTAYIL HOUSE, P.O.NATTIKA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 566.**
- **50 V.R.SANTHAKUMARY**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**6**
**AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.VENUGOPAL,"HARIDEEPAM", KAIPPILLY ROAD,P.O.ARIMBUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 620.**
- **51 C.V.LALITHA**
**AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.SAMBUKUMARAN,VADEKKATT HOUSE, P.O.NATTIKA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 566.**
- **52 P.BHANUMATHY**
- **AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.P.SIVASANKARAN,POOLOTH HOUSE, P.O.CHOONDAL,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 502.**
- **53 K.A.MARY**
- **AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.FRANCIS,OLAKKENGIL HOUSE, P.O.VELOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 601.**
- **54**
## **T.R.SHAILA**
**AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.N.K.MOHANAN,NAMBANATH HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 003.**
- **55 A.SAVITHRI AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.K.VENUGOPALAN,KOLARI HOUSE, P.O.KECHERY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 501.**
- **56 P.D.PAUL AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSY,PORATHUKKARAN HOUSE, P.O.THAIKKATTUSSERY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 306.**
**57 P.A.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.ALI,PALLIKKALAKATH HOUSE, P.O.KANDAMKULAM, METHALA,KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 669.**
- **58 T.RAMACHANDRAN AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN,THOTTUNGAL HOUSE, P.O.THONNOORKARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 586.**
- **59 V.M.VANSATHY**
- **AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.CHIRANGATHAN,CHERAI PADINIJAKKARA HOUSE,P.O.ANDATHODE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 679 564.**
- **60 ROSILY P.P. AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.C.C.JOSEPH,CHOWALLUR HOUSE, ARTHAT P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 521.**
- **61 C.SATHY AGED 69 YEARS, W/O.NARAYANAN NAIR,CHAKKANARI HOUSE, P.O.KANIMANGALAM,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 027.**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**7**
- **62 C.S.OUSEPH AGED 60 YEARS, CHERIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,KARIYAD P.O., THEKKUMKARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 589.**
- **63 K.J.BASHEER AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.JAMAL K.P.,KANJIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLETTUMKARA P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 683.**
- **64 P.K.SUGATHAN AGED 62 YEARS, POTTEKKAT HOUSE,P.O.KIZHAKKUMMURY, PERINGOTTUKARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 571.**
- **65 P.V.VIJALALAKSHMY**
**AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.LATE RAJENDRAN,KUTTAMKULAM HOUSE P.O.AKATHIYOOR,KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 519.**
|**66**|**P.G.SUSHAMA**|
|---|---|
||**AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.C.R.SASIDHARAN,CHENNAMKULAM HOUSE,**|
||**P.O.NATTIKA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 566.**|
|**67**|**K.A.VIJAYAN**|
||**AGED 59 YEARS, KANDANGATH HOUSE,PUTTEKKARA P.O.,**|
||**ANJUR-MUNDUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 541.**|
|**68**|**C.N.GOVINDANKUTTY**|
||**AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN,CHIRAKKAL HOUSE,**|
||**P.O.CHERPU,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 561.**|
|**69**|**U.K.PUSHPALATHA**|
||**AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAN,KARUMANPARAMBIL HOUSE,**|
||**P.O.PUZHAKKAL,MUTHUVARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680**|
||**553.**|
|**70**|**K.K.SASIDHARAN**|
||**AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN,KAIPPILLY HOUSE,**|
||**P.O.ARIMBUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 620.**|
|**71**|**T.J.THOMAS**|
||**AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOHN,THEKKUMCHERY HOUSE,**|
||**P.O.POOMALA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 581.**|
|**72**|**T.B.SURIAN**|
||**AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOHN,THEKKUMCHERY HOUSE,**|
||**P.O.POOMALA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 581.**|
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**8**
|**73**|**P.BALACHANDRAN**|
|---|---|
||**AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.DEVAKY AMMA,PANDIYATH HOUSE,**|
||**P.O.CHOOLISSERY,MUNDUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680**|
||**541.**|
|**74**|**SARAMMA MATHEW**|
||**AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.ADV.ROBSON PAUL,KOLENCHERY HOUSE,**|
||**P.O.ARANTTUKARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 618.**|
|**75**|**M.P.SUSHAMADEVI**|
||**AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.T.N.NARAYNANA ELAYATH,"HARISREE",**|
||**TKV NAGAR, KUTTANELLUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680**|
||**014.**|
|**76**|**K.E.PARUKUTTY**|
||**AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN,'POURNAMI',**|
||**PERINGAVU, P.O.CHEROOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680**|
||**008.**|
|**77**|**C.S.RAMANKUTTY**|
||**AGED 63 YEARS, CHITTATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,MUTHUVARA,**|
||**P.O.PUZHAKKAL,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 553.**|
|**78**|**K.N.UNNIKRISHNAN**|
||**AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.S.NARAYANAN**|
||**NAMBOODIRI,KUZHUPPILLY MANA, P.O.PENGAMUCK,THRISSUR**|
||**DISTRICT, PIN - 680 544.**|
|**79**|**K.VANAJAKUMARI**|
||**AGED 59 YEARS, KANAT HOUSE,P.O.ANANDAPURAM, THRISSUR**|
||**DISTRICT,PIN - 680 305.**|
|**80**|**R.KUMARADAS**|
||**S/O.RAMAN EZHUTHASSAN,PANARIYIL HOUSE,**|
||**P.O.THIRUVILWAMALA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 588.**|
|**81**|**C.G.SAVITHRI**|
||**AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.PRABHAKARAN,PANIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,**|
||**P.O.CHITTILAPPILLY,THRISSUR - 680 551.**|
|**82**|**VARGHESE.R.ALAPPATT**|
||**AGED 63 YEARS, ALAPPATT HOUSE,PALACE ROAD,**|
||**P.O.CHALAKUDY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 305.**|
|**83**|**BABY MATHEW**|
||**AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.JOHN ZILAS,CHERUMADATHIL**|
||**HOUSE,P.O.RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -**|
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**9**
**680 631.**
**84 V.N.KAIRALI AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.MURALEEDHARAN MENON,VATTEKAT HOUSE, P.O.VAKAMATTAM (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 602.**
- **85 K.A.SANKARANARAYANAN AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAKUTTY,KALLAYIL HOUSE, P.O.MATTOM,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 602.**
- **86 O.M.PYLEE AGED 60 YEARS, OLAMALAKUZHIYIL HOUSE,CHALAMPADAM, P.O.KOOTTALA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 652.**
- **87 T.P.ANTO AGED 61 YEARS, THARAKAN HOUSE,AMBAKAD P.O., PUZHAKKAL,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 553.**
- **88 N.V.SUSEELA AGED 63 YEARS, NERUKKAVIL VARIEM,PERUMBILLISSERY, P.O.CHERPU,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 685 601.**
- **89 C.C.NANDANAN AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.CHAKKAPPAN,CHAZHUTHARAVATTIL HOUSE, P.O.ALAPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 641.**
- **90 T.M.VASUDEVAN AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN,THEKKOOT HOUSE, P.O.KANAKAMALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 689.**
- **91 T.K.INDIRA AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.LATE SHANMUGHAN,KODAKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.MANAKODY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 012.**
- **92 M.SARALADEVI AGED 63 YEARS, POOYATH HOUSE,NANDIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 301.**
- **93 P.K.MEERABAI AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAN,THANDASSERY HOUSE, P.O.ERAVIMANGALAM,KRISHNAN MASTER NAGAR,POOCHETTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 751.**
- **94 K.J.SUNNY AGED 68 YEARS, KALLEN HOUSE,PUTHENCHIRA P.O., IRINJALAKUDA (VIA),THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 682.**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**10**
- **95 U.G.HARIHARAN AGED 71 YEARS, UNNIPARAMBATH IRATTU HOUSE,MANNATHIKULAM, P.O.IRINJALAKUDA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 121.**
- **96 K.L.DAVIS AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LONAPPAN,KOZHALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUDUKAD P.O.,NEAR THURAVU RAILWAY GATE,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 301.**
- **97 K.A.UMMERKUNJI AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.AHAMEDKUNJI,KINATTINGAL HOUSE, P.O.AZHIKODE,KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 666.**
- **98 V.O.THOMAS AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH,VAROCKY HOUSE, PONGANAMKADU,KURICHIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 025.**
- **99 P.K.INDIRA AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN,MANDANATT HOUSE, THIRUVANCHIKULAM,P.O.KOTTAPURAM, KODUNGALLUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 667.**
- **100 P.J.VELUKUTTY AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.JANAKY AMMA,PATTIYIL HOUSE P.O.VELUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 601.**
- **101 A.P.DEVASSY AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.PORINCHU,ALOOR HOUSE, P.O.PUDURUTHY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 623.**
- **102 K.S.PRABHAKARAN**
**AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY,KURIAKKOTT HOUSE, P.O.PUZHAKKAL,MUTHUVARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 553.**
- **103 P.K.RAVINDRAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPA,PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, P.O.GURUVAYUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 101.**
- **104 P.B.SIMON**
- **AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.BABY,PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, P.O.VIYYUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 010.**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**11**
- **105 N.M.PRASANNA**
- **W/O.M.K.RAJAN, MANDATHARA HOUSE,P.O.KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 664.**
- **106 C.P.ROSILY AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.K.P.VARGHESE,KOLAVANNUR HOUSE, DECENT LANE,P.O.PULLAZHY, OLARI,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 012.**
- **107 V.VASUMATHY AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN,KOTTARATH HOUSE, OLARIKKARA,P.O.PULLAZHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 012.**
- **108 P.F.MARIYAMMA AGED 60 YERS, W/O.LATE V.C.FRANCIS,'PROVIDENCE' THOTTATHIL ANGADI,P.O.CHELAMMOTTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 005.**
- **109 C.R.LEELA AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.M.R.SIVANANDAN,MUNDANATTU HOUSE, "SIVASYALAM",H.NO.TC 55/220, P.O.AYANTHOLE,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 003.**
- **110 C.K.ARUMUGHAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.THAMI,CHERATTAKUNNATH HOUSE, HMC COLONY,P.O.KUTTIPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 679 571.**
- **111 E.A.ABDULKAREEM AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY, ERAMANGALATH HOUSE, KANDENKULAM PO, METHALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 664**
- **112 K.UNNIKRISHNAN AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.P.VELU NAIR,KANDAMCHARTH HOUSE, VENGANELLUR P.O.,CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 586.**
- **113 E.SANTHAKUMARI AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.MADHAVAN NAIR,CHAITHRAM, KIZHAKE EACHARATH HOUSE,PUTHURKKARA, P.O.AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 003.**
- **114 NALINI VELAPPAN.P. AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.JAYARAVI NARAYANAN, VAIKKATTIL HOUSE, VELANS LANE,P.O.KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**12**
**DISTRICT, PIN - 680 027.**
## **115 A.K.NALINI**
- **AGED 65 YEARS, KATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,PARAKKULAM ROAD, P.O.ARIYANNUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 102.**
- **116 V.M.JALAJAMANI**
- **AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.DHARMAPALAN,KANNANKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.ASHTAMICHIRA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 731.**
- **117 K.RAJENDRAN**
- **AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY MENON,KUZHUPPILLY HOUSE, PORATHISSERY, IRINJALAKUDA NORTH P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 125.**
- **118 C.K.VASANTHA AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.RAJAN,PADINJAREKKARA HOUSE, P.O.NATTIKA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 566.**
- **119 N.V.KAMALAM**
- **AGED 63 YEARS, PUZHANKARA HOUSE,KRISHNA BHAVAN, P.O.CHITTANDA,WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.**
- **120 T.K.VENUGOPALAN AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR,THAZATH VEEDU, "KRISHNA VIHAR",VELLANGALLUR (VIA), THUMBOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 662.**
- **121 K.R.NALINI**
- **AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.T.S.BABU,THAIVALATH HOUSE, P.O.THIRUTHIPURAM,(VIA) KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 667.**
- **122 JALAJAKUMARY.V.B.**
**AGED 58 YERS, W/O.K.S.SANKARANARAYANAN,KUNNATH HOUSE, EDAKKULAM P.O.,P.O.THANGALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 581.**
- **123 P.SASEENDRA**
- **AGED 69 YEARS, W/O.VISWANATHAN,"VISWASREE", POIKATTUSSERY HOUSE, P.O.CHENGAMANAD,ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN - 683 578.**
- **124 V.K.MOHANAN**
- **S/O.V.S.KUNHIMAMA, VALLUR HOUSE,PUTHENPEEDIKA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 642.**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**13**
- **125 M.V.SADANANDAN AGED 65 YEARS, MANJIMA,EDAKKUNNY, P.O.THAIKKATTUSSERY,OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 306.**
- **126 P.S.BALAKRISHNAN AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN,PONATH HOUSE, P.O.KARA, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 671.**
- **127 P.RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 65 YEARS, PARAKOTTIL HOUSE,P.O.THONNURKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 586.**
- **128 V.R.NARAYANAN AGED 66 YEARS, VIYYOKKARAN HOUSE,MOORKANIKAKRA P.O., P.O.KOZHUKKULLY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 752.**
- **129 T.K.PRATHAPAN AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN,THYKKOTTATHIL HOUSE, ETTUMUNA,P.O.KARUVANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 711.**
- **130 K.K.MOLLY AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.C.L.DAVIS,KONKOTH HOUSE, P.O.THUMBOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 662.**
- **131 M.M.SUBAIDABI AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.C.SULAIMAN,GREEN VIEW, P.O.CHELAKKARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 586.**
- **132 V.V.KOCHUPAUL AGED 59 YEARS, VELLIYAMATTATHIL HOUSE,P.O.ARANATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 618.**
- **133 A.R.ASOKAN AGED 65 YEARS, ADIYATH HOUSE,P.O.PAZHUVIL, RAJAVEEDI,GAYATHRI STOP, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680564.**
- **134 P.NANDINI NAIR AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYANARAYANAN,VI/561, "VAISAGH", P.O.CHEROOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 008.**
- **135 K.K.RAMANI AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.LATE SUBRAMANIAN,ANNIPARAMBIL**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**14**
**HOUSE, P.O.VIYYUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 010.**
**136 T.NANIKUTTY AGED 69 YEARS, W/O.PADMANABHA MENON,THALAPPILLY HOUSE, 27/850,CO-OPERATIVE ROAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 020.**
- **137 RAMANI P.RAJA AGED 62 YERS, W/O.E.PRAKASANRAJA,S-3, YAMUNA APARTMENT, KOTTAPURAM,P.O.POOTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 004.**
**138 P.K.KRISHNANKUTTY AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KANDOTHY, PERUMPILLY HOUSE, NADIPPARA,P.O.CHEMBUCHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 684.**
- **139 K.V.THANKAMANI AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.RAMAN,PARAYIL HOUSE, VALARKAVU, P.O.KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 006.**
- **140 JAMES CHIRAYATH.F. AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.FRANCIS,CHIRAYATH HOUSE, P.O.THALAKKOTTUKARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 501.**
- **141 P.V.BINA**
- **AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.RAVEENDRANATHAN,KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 027.**
**142 P.U.VALSALA AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.V.K.BALAKRISHNAN,"KRISHNA", VADAKKOOTT HOUSE, M.G.NAGAR,P.O.PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 002.**
- **143 T.M.ALPHONSA**
**AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.U.D.PAULY,UPPUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLETTUMKARA P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 683.**
- **144 B.A.SATHY**
**AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.C.V.MOHANDAS,226/141, CHEMBIL HOUSE,CO-OPERATIVE ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVE,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 020.**
- **145 SNEHALATHA.M.P. AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.JAYAKUMAR,KARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMURI P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 571.**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**15**
|**146**|**P.SATHIAN**|
|---|---|
||**AGED 58 YEARS, JTG NIVAS,ARIKAT HOUSE, CHUNGAL,**|
||**MATTATHUR P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 684.**|
|**147**|**SHAILA K.M.**|
||**AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.JAYAPRAKASH,KOLAPPADATH HOUSE,**|
||**ANAPUZHA P.O.,KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN -**|
||**680 667.**|
|**148**|**E.K.SASIDHARAN**|
||**AGED 58 YEARS, EDAKANNOTH HOUSE,P.O.PERINCHERY,**|
||**THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 306.**|
|**149**|**M.G.SIVADASAN**|
||**AGED 70 YEARS, MUNDANATT HOUSE,P.O.PARALAM, THRISSUR**|
||**DISTRICT,PIN - 680 563.**|
|**150**|**VARGHESE.K.A.**|
||**AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY,KURISSERY HOUSE,**|
||**P.O.MELOOR, (VIA) CHALAKUDI,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -**|
||**680 311.**|
|**151**|**C.K.SANTHA**|
||**AGED 63 YEARS, W/O.VASUDEVAN,KATTUNGAL HOUSE,**|
||**PALLIPURAM,KODANNUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680**|
||**563.**|
|**152**|**V.S.SANUJA**|
||**AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.RAGHAVAN,KARANAYIL HOUSE,**|
||**ETTUMUNA,P.O.KARUVANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680**|
||**711.**|
|**153**|**K.S.AYYAPPAKUTTY**|
||**AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN,VAZHAPPILLY HOUSE,**|
||**P.O.ARIMBUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 620.**|
|**154**|**R.PEETHAMBARAN**|
||**AGED 63 YEARS, RAMABATHU HOUSE,P.O.KANDASSANKADAVU,**|
||**THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 613.**|
|**155**|**K.R.ROSY**|
||**AGED 68 YEARS, KUNDUKULANGARA HOUSE,KANJANY ROAD,**|
||**AYYANTHOLE.P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 003.**|
|**156**|**C.V.SATHIABHAMA**|
||**AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.SUBRAN,THOPPIL HOUSE**|
||**P.O.KANJANI,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 612.**|
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**16**
**157 E.A.BABY AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.A.D.INASU,ALAPPATT HOUSE, P.O.KATTOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 702. 158 M.C.AMMINI**
**AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.CHIRUKANDAN,MULLUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHICHAL,KORATTY SOUTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 308.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
**1 THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.60, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVAMBADY P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 022. 2 THE PART-TIME ADMINISTRATOR THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.60,HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVAMBADY P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 022,(JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),THRISSUR). 3 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,COOPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**
**R BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC FOR TSR DIST.CO.OP.BANK BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**17**
## **JUDGMENT**
**The petitioners, who are retired employees of the 1[st] respondent Bank, who retired from service on superannuation on various dates during the period between June, 2005 and May, 2018, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 Government order dated 20.03.2007 and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to pay arrears of salary from 01.07.2002 to 30.06.2003 with interest based on the revision of pay effected as per Ext.P1 order dated 21.06.2005. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that they are entitled to get arrears of salary from 01.07.2002 to 30.06.2003 with interest within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.**
**2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**18**
**1 and 2.**
**3. The entitlement of the employees of District Co-operative Banks for arrears of salary for the period from 01.07.2002 to 30.06.2003 has now been settled by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 25.05.2018 in W.A.No.1222 of 2017 and connected cases. Paragraphs 19, 20 and the operative portion of the said judgment read thus :**
_**“19. The case on hand is covered by the observations in paragraph 22.3, where the Apex Court has held that if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delay or acquiescence. The appellants in W.A.No.1231 of 2017 have no case that W.P.(C)No.34683 of 2009 is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The challenge in that writ petition is on the merits of the claim. It is in the connected cases that the ground of delay and**_
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**19**
_**laches is put forward. The judgment in W.P. (C)No.34683 of 2009 was delivered on 15.12.2016. The other writ petitions were filed immediately thereafter namely in March and April, 2017. It is no doubt true that none of the petitioners had challenged Ext.P5 Government order dated 20.3.2007 as soon as it was passed. They accepted it and retired from service. It was only after the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.34683 of 2009 succeeded in getting relief that the other writ petitions were filed. As the dispute is about denial of arrears of salary and allowances, which stood revised with effect from 1.7.2002, for a period of 12 months commencing from 1.7.2002 and ending with 30.6.2003 and as the petitioners had moved this court within three months after W.P. (C)No.34683 of 2009 was allowed by a learned single Judge of this court, we find no reason or justification to deny relief to the petitioners on the ground that there was delay and laches and acquiescence on their part.**_
_**20. We however notice that the learned single Judge has directed disbursement of arrears of salary and allowances during the period from 1.7.2002 to 30.6.2003 with 6% interest. Except the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.34683 of 2009, the others had not moved the Government or this court in time. The petitioners in the**_
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**20**
_**connected writ petitions moved this court only in the year 2017. The Apex Court has in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [2009 (1) KLT 101 (SC)] held that where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. It was also held that in such cases interest on arrears should be declined. In the instant case, if the claim made by the petitioners is granted it would not affect the settled rights of third parties. It will also not result in the reopening of issues already concluded. It would not also affect the seniority of employees in service or their promotions. In the light of these facts, we find no reason or justification to deny relief to the petitioners on the ground of delay and laches. However, as the petitioners in W.P. (C)Nos.7146, 11337, 11344, 20741, 22430, 26955 and 27455 of 2017 moved this court only after W.P.(C)No.34683 of 2009 was heard and allowed, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (supra) we are of the opinion that they are not entitled to interest. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.34683 of 2009, from which W.A.No.1231 of 2017 arises, stand on a different footing. They had moved the Government claiming arrears of salary and allowances in the year 2008. They had**_
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**21**
_**thereafter moved this court on two occasions and it was in the last occasion that relief was granted to them. Merely for the reason that they were granted interest the petitioners in the other cases be granted that benefit. We are therefore of the opinion that except the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.34683 of 2009, the petitioners in the other writ petitions are not entitled to interest on the arrears of salary and allowances during the period from 1.7.2002 to 30.6.2003.**_
_**For the reasons stated above, we dismiss W.A.No.1231 of 2017, allow W.A.Nos.1222, 1247 and 1538 of 2017 and W.A.Nos.162, 163, 380 and 390 of 2018 in part to the extent it relates to the award of interest and vacate the direction issued by the learned single Judge in the respective writ petitions to pay interest on the amounts due and payable to the petitioners therein towards arrears of salary and allowances during the period from 1.7.2002 to 30.6.2003. The judgments impugned in W.A.Nos.1222, 1247 and 1538 of 2017 and W.A.Nos.162, 163, 380 and 390 of 2018 shall stand affirmed in all other respects. No costs.” (underline supplied)**_
**4. In the judgment dated 25.05.2018 in W.A.No.1222 of 2017 and connected cases the Division Bench held that, as the dispute is about denial of arrears of salary and allowances, which**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**22**
**stood revised with effect from 1.7.2002, for a period of 12 months commencing from 1.7.2002 and ending with 30.6.2003 and as the petitioners had moved this court within three months after W.P. (C)No.34683 of 2009 was allowed by the learned single Judge by the judgment dated 15.12.2016, there is no reason or justification to deny relief to the petitioners on the ground that there was delay and laches and acquiescence on their part. It was also held that if the claim made by the petitioners is granted it would not affect the settled rights of third parties. It will also not result in the reopening of issues already concluded. It would not also affect the seniority of employees in service or their promotions. In such circumstances, the Division Bench found no reason or justification to deny relief to the petitioners on the ground of delay and laches. However, as the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.7146, 11337, 11344, 20741, 22430, 26955 and 27455 of 2017**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**23**
**moved this Court only after W.P.(C)No.34683 of 2009 was heard and allowed, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (supra), the Division Bench held that they are not entitled to interest.**
**5. One of the main contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the District Cooperative Bank is that the petitioners, who have waited till the disposal of W.A.No.1222 of 2017 and connected cases in approaching this Court, are not entitled for any relief on account of the delay and laches. The principle of denial of relief to fencesitters has application in the facts of the case on hand and as such, they are not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel would place reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aravind Kumar Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC 347] and Union of India v. Shri Hanuman Industries [(2015) 6 SCC 600].**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**24**
**6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1222 of 2017 and connected cases is one rendered after taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Srivastava's case (supra). The learned counsel would also place reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Viswanathan v. Haripad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2018 (3) KLT 815].**
**7. In Arvind Kumar Srivastava's case (supra), the Apex Court has stated in categorical terms that the normal rule is that when a particular set of employees are given relief by court, all other identically situated persons should be treated alike by extending the same benefit. In the said decision, the Apex Court has also held that the said principle will be subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**25**
**challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the said judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. Paragraphs 22 of the said decision reads thus :**
_**“22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:**_
_**22.1. Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service**_
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**26**
_**jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.**_
_**22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.**_
_**22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like**_
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**27**
_**scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India, (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.”**_
**8. In Shri Hanuman Industries's case (supra), another decision relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the District Co-operative Bank, the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the coapplicants in the earlier round of litigation immediately approached the court and obtained relief. However, the respondent applicants before the Apex Court waited till the said relief was affirmed by the Apex Court on 01.05.2009 and only thereafter, on 27.08.2009, approached the High Court for similar relief. The Apex Court held that, the respondent applicants, in view of their**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**28**
**deliberate laches, negligence and inaction have disentitled themselves to the benefit of adjudication in the earlier lis. Paragraphs 18 and 22 of the said decision read thus:**
_**“18. The pleaded facts and the competing arguments have received our due attention. To start with, it is not disputed that the writ petitioners in the earlier round of adjudication were applicants under SPINE alike the respondents herein. They being appalled by the delay in the grant of their receivables thereunder and being faced with the letter dated 05-02-2007 whereby pending receipt and scrutiny of the reports as called for, further sanction/disbursement of Grants-in-Aid under the said scheme was stopped, did promptly approach the Guwahati High Court with a batch of writ petitions in the year 2007 itself and as narrated hereinabove were favoured with a direction to the implementing authorities for consideration of their application for the investment subsidy in accordance with law without being influenced by the said letter. Admittedly, the respondents herein elected not to join them and instead, soon thereafter this Court affirmed the above verdict on 01-05-2009, staked their claim on 27-08-2009. There is evidently thus a time lag of more than two years by which the respondents’ challenge was delayed.**_
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**29**
_**18.1. It is a matter of record, that by letter/notification dated 04-05-2010 issued by the Secretary, Ministry of DONER, NEC, Shillong, confirmation of the decision of withdrawal and closure of SPINE with effect from 23-02-2007, was notified. A plain perusal of the contents of this document would reveal in no uncertain terms that the withdrawal and closure of SPINE had been effected by an Order of Government of India vide NEC/PLAN/ii-23-22007. Thus the letter/notification dated 0405-2010, did relate back to 23-02-2007 for all intents and purposes. Therefore the scheme, SPINE stood withdrawn and/or closed on and from 23-02-2007. As a corollary, on a cumulative reading of the letters dated 05-022007, 23-02-2007 and 04-05-2010 as well as the resolution dated 21-02-2007 it is indubitable that SPINE stood withdrawn and/or closed with effect from 23-02-2007. As adverted to hereinabove, by letter dated 01-10.2007, as a consequential step, the proposal which had remained unprocessed as per the standard procedures of the scheme were returned to the State Governments. The list of proposals remitted back admittedly included those amongst others of the respondents herein. It is thus patent that on such date i.e. 01-102007, the claims of the respondents had not been accepted and in view of the closure of the scheme, were returned to the respective**_
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**30**
_**State Governments. In this pronounced backdrop, the plea of the respondents that at the institution of the writ petitions in 2009, no decision had been taken rejecting their applications fades into insignificance, as those by implication had not been entertained under the scheme.**_
_**18.2 The letters dated 04-08-2006, 04-09-2007 and 12-09-2007 to which our attention has been drawn in course of the arguments, suffice it to mention, do not contain any assurance on the part of the implementing authorities promising grant of the subsidy allowance under the scheme or any other incentive to the respondent. No reference has been made before us of any other document qua the other respondents. We are thus constrained to hold that there was no promise on the part of the public functionaries in charge of implementation of SPINE to the respondents to extend benefits thereunder, inspite of the decision to withdraw or close the same with effect from 23-02-2007.**_
## _**xxx xxx**_
_**22. On a consideration of the totality of the aspects involved, we are thus of the unhesitant view that the respondents herein in view of their deliberate laches, negligence and inaction have disentitled themselves to the benefit of the adjudication in the earlier**_
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**31**
_**lis. In the accompanying facts and circumstances in our comprehension, it would be iniquitous and repugnant as well to the public exchequer to entertain the belated claim of the respondents on the basis of the doctrine of promissory estoppel which is even otherwise inapplicable to the case in hand.”**_
**9. In the instant case, a reading of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 25.05.2018 in W.A.No.1222 of 2017 and connected cases would show that, after referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Srivastava's case (supra), the Division Bench held in paragraph 19 that, the case before it is covered by the observations in paragraph 22.3 wherein the Apex Court held that, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**32**
**extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delay or acquiescence. The Division Bench noticed that the appellants in W.A.No.1231 of 2017 have no case that W.P.(C).No.34683 of 2009 is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The challenge in that writ petition is on the merits of the claim. It is in the connected cases that the ground of delay and laches is put forward. The judgment in W.P.(C).No.34683 of 2009 was delivered on 15.05.2016. The other writ petitions were filed immediately thereafter, namely in March and April, 2017. None of the petitioners had challenged Ext.P5 Government Order dated 20.03.2007 as soon as it was passed. They accepted it and retired from service. It was only after the petitioners in W.P. (C).No.34683 of 2009 succeeded in getting relief that the other writ petitions were filed. As the dispute is about denial of arrears of salary and allowances, which stood revised with effect from**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**33**
**01.07.2002, for a period of 12 months commencing from 01.07.2002 and ending with 30.06.2003 and as the petitioners had moved this Court within three months after W.P.(C).No.34683 of 2009 was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the Division Bench found no reason or justification to deny relief to the petitioners on the ground that there was delay and laches and acquiescence on their part. However, the Division Bench found that the petitioners are not entitled for interest.**
**10. In Viswanathan's case (supra), a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a Division Bench of this Court held that, the mere fact that the Co-operative Bank thought it fit to postpone the disbursement of the pay revision arrears in implementation does not affect the entitlement thereof. In the said decision, the Division Bench was dealing with a belated claim for pay revision arrears for the period from 01.07.1991 to 17.07.1998. After**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**34**
**referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Balkaran Singh [(2006) 12 SCC 709] and also the provisions under Article 43 of the Constitution of India, the Division Bench held that the entitlement of the employees for the revised pay is not seriously in dispute and the main contention of the Co-operative Bank is that it was implemented much later. Therefore, the Division Bench held that, the mere fact that the Cooperative Bank thought it fit to postpone the disbursement of pay revision arrears in implementation does not affect the entitlement thereof. The pay revision orders issued by the Government itself enables the Registrar to grant time for effecting payment depending on the financial position of the Co-operative Bank. The obligation is on the Co-operative Bank (which is the employer) to disburse the salary promptly even without waiting for the employee to make a demand. The total salary included the pre-revised and**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**35**
**revised pay and the admitted disbursement of a portion to the appellant during the period in question saves limitation even if there is any. Accordingly, the Division Bench directed the competent among the respondents to disburse the pay revision arrears due to the appellant within a period of three months from that judgment.**
**11. In the instant case, the claim of the petitioners is for disbursement of pay arrears for the period from 01.07.2002 to 30.06.2003, which was sanctioned vide Ext.P3 G.O.(MS)No.96/07 dated 20.03.2007, with a restriction that the disbursement of monetary benefits on account of pay revision will be given only to the employees who have retired prior to 31.05.2005. The fact that the petitioners have also enjoyed the benefit of pay revision is not in dispute. However, they were denied arrears for the period from 01.07.2002 to 30.06.2003, in view of the restriction imposed in Ext.P3. By Ext.P4 judgment dated 15.12.2016 the**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**36**
**said benefit was extended to the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.34683 of 2009. Ext.P4 judgment and the judgments in W.P.(C).Nos.7146 of 2017, 11344 of 2017, 11337 of 2017, etc. were under challenge before the Division Bench in W.A.No.1222 of 2017 and connected cases, which were filed in the year 2017 and 2018 respectively. Those writ appeals were disposed of by judgment dated 25.05.2018. Now the petitioners have filed this writ petition on 18.07.2018 seeking extension of the benefit of Ext.P4 judgment dated 15.12.2016, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 25.05.2018 in W.A.No.1222 of 2017 and connected cases. The petitioners would also place reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 11.06.2018 in W.P.(C).No.16806 of 2017, whereby, the benefit of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1222 of 2017 was extended to the petitioner therein, who filed that writ petition in May, 2017, during the pendendcy of writ appeals**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**37**
**challenging Ext.P4 judgment and connected matters.**
**12. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioners have not chosen to approach this Court either immediately after Ext.P4 judgment of the learned Single Judge or during the pendency of W.A.No.1222 of 2017 and connected cases. No reason whatsoever has been stated in the writ petition for the delay in approaching this Court.**
**13. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana (AIR 1988 SC 2181), the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. The Apex Court**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**38**
**held further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.**
**14. Having considered the averments in the writ petition and also the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both sides, conclusion is irresistible that the petitioners who have waited till Ext.P4 judgment dated 15.12.2016 is affirmed by the Division Bench by judgment dated 25.05.2018 and thereafter filed this writ petition on 18.07.2018, offering no explanation whatsoever for the delay in approaching this Court, going by the averments in the writ petition are not entitled for any relief in this writ petition, in exercise of**
**WP(C).No. 24167 of 2018**
**39**
**the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of**
**the Constitution of India.**
**In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.**
## **Sd/-**
## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.145/05/CO-OP DATED 21/06/2005. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.21/07/CO-OP DATED 06/01/2007. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.96/07/CO-OP DATED 20/03/2007. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/12/2016 IN WP(C) NO.34683 OF 2009. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/06/2018 IN WP(C) NO.18140 OF 2017.**
**AV/11/10**