Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. No. F (T) 738 (MATSYAFED) v. Jancy A.K. and State of Kerala

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1941 WA.No.2146 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18737/2019 DATED 29.07.2019** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN W.P.(C) NO.18737/2019:** - **1 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD. NO. F (T) 738 (MATSYAFED), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAMALESWARAM, MANACADU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009.** **2 GENERAL MANAGER MATSYAFED, KAMALESWARAM, MANACADU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) NO.18737/2019:** - **1 JANCY A.K. W/O. K. B. SREEVALSAKUMAR, DISTRICT MANAGER (RETD), MATSYAFED DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT NAMBIARMADOM, SOUTH GATE, AMBALAPPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 561.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** **ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.)-R1** **SPL GP- SRI MOHMMED HASHIM.** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.2146/2019 2 ## **JUDGMENT** Ravikumar, J. The Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. No.F(T) 738 commonly called 'MATSYAFED' and its General Manager preferred this appeal against judgment dated 29.7.2019 in W.P.(C).No.18737 of 2019. They were respondents 2 and 3 in the said writ petition which was filed by the first respondent herein who is a retiree from the service of the first appellant. While as District she retired from service on working Manager, superannuation on 31.3.2018. She filed the writ petition on being aggrieved by the delay in the matter of disbursement of retiral benefits despite the lapse of more than one year since her retirement. The main prayer of the writ petitioner/first respondent was to direct the MATSYAFED to disburse her eligible retirement benefits including gratuity, leave surrender, pay revision benefits etc. within a time frame. The learned Single Judge considered the rival submissions and disposed of the writ petition with directions. The operative portion of the impugned judgment reads thus:- W.A.2146/2019 3 “In the afore perspective, I order this writ petition and direct the Matsyafed to pay the petitioner all her eligible retirement benefits, including Gratuity, leave surrender, pay revision etc as per her claim along with statutorily applicable interest, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; within which time, if they are able to obtain necessary orders interdicting such payment from a competent Tribunal/ Court/Authority, then the directions afore will stand modulated to that effect. Needless to say, if the Matsyafed is unable to obtain interdictory orders within the time frame granted herein, they will be obligated to make payment, subject to any further orders that may be issued by any competent Forum in future.” It is aggrieved by the aforesaid directions that the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. A careful perusal of the pleadings in the appeal would reveal that according to the appellants, the learned Single Judge ought to have relegated the writ petitioner to avail the remedy under section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. It is the further contention that in the light of the decision of this Court in **Association of Milma Officers v. State of Kerala [2015 (1) KLT** **849]** , the writ petition ought not to have been entertained. 3. It is a fact that no counter affidavit has been filed in the writ W.A.2146/2019 4 petition. True that, the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself. However, going by the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides that virtually, the respondents in W.P.(C) No.18737 of 2019 were given adequate time to get instructions in regard to the contentions raised in the writ petition. Only after granting such opportunities that the writ petition was disposed of. Be that as it may, it is discernible from the impugned judgment that the reason for non-disbursement of retiral benefits to the writ petitioner/first respondent is that the appellants are suspicious of her involvement in misappropriation of funds of MATSYAFED at Vyasa Store. The suspected loss is about Rs.2.33 crores. But at the same time, the submissions of the learned standing counsel for MATSYAFED recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and the pleadings in this appeal would reveal that in respect of the said incident, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the writ petitioner till her retirement from service on 31.3.2018. There is absolutely no question of initiation of disciplinary proceedings after her retirement as the settled position is W.A.2146/2019 5 that once an employee retires from service, there would not be any jural relationship between the employee or his/her employer. Whatever that be, there is no case for the appellants that any disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner in regard to the aforesaid issue and it is pending. True that in the appeal, in ground F, it is stated that the successor District Manager had lodged a complaint based on which FIR No.1123/2019 was registered at Ambalappuzha Police Station against a sales man in Vyasa Store under the MATSYAFED for offences punishable under sections 408, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, it would reveal that there is absolutely no case that a crime was registered against the writ petitioner/first respondent. On going through the pleadings in ground F, crime was registered only against the salesman. In otherwords, no criminal proceeding is also pending against the first respondent/writ petitioner. It is the contention of the appellants that the said store where the aforesaid salesman was working was under the jurisdiction of the writ petitioner while she was functioning as the District Manager in Alappuzha. W.A.2146/2019 6 Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts, we will proceed to consider whether the impugned judgment invites interference. We have already extracted the operative portion of the impugned judgment. It would go to show that even after issuing a direction to pay eligible retiral benefits including gratuity, leave surrender, pay revision benefits etc. to the writ petitioner/first respondent within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, the learned Single Judge virtually reserved the right of the appellants to obtain necessary orders interdicting such payment from a competent Tribunal/Court/Authority, with the rider that in such eventuality, the directions will stand modulated to that extent. That apart, it is stated that in case of failure to obtain any such orders within the time stipulated in the impugned judgment, the benefits directed to be paid should be disbursed and even in such circumstances, it was made subject to any further order that may be issued by any competitive forum in future. We are at a loss to understand how the appellants are felt aggrieved by the said directions, especially, when they got no case at all that disciplinary proceedings were initiated and pending W.A.2146/2019 7 against the writ petitioner/first respondent while she was in service or that a crime was registered against her while she was in service or after her demitting office. In the light of the aforesaid undisputed and indisputable factual position obtained in this case, we do not find any reason to hold that the impugned judgment invites interference. The upshot of the discussions is that this appeal is liable to fail and consequently, it is dismissed. **Sd/-** ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **JUDGE Sd/-** **N.NAGARESH JUDGE** spc/ W.A.2146/2019 8