K.G. Narayana Pillai v. Kaviyoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 621 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** K.G.NARAYANA PILLAI AGED 68 YEARS S/o M.G. GOVINDAPILLAI,KADAMANNIL HOUSE, KAVIYOOR P.O, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689582 BY ADVS. T.P.PRADEEP P.K.SATHEES KUMAR R.K.PRASANTH MINIKUMARY M.V. 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY COOPERATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL) MINI CIVIL STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA 3 KAVIYOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.A707 KAVIYOOR P.O, THIRUVALLA, PIN – 689582 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 4 BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT KAVIYOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. A707, KAVIYOOR P.O,THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689582 BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT RESMI THOMAS-GP **2** ## **WP(C) NO. 621 OF 2022** THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 621 OF 2022** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner assails Ext.P7 letter issued to him by the Kaviyoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Society” for short), from whose services he retired, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 30/04/2010. The petitioner says that when he so retired, he was given only Rs.3.5 lakhs towards gratuity, though being entitled to much larger amounts, going by Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as the “KCS Rules” for short). His contention is that since he retired on 30/04/2010, the second proviso to Rule 59(3) of the “KCS Rules” will have no application, since it came into force much later; and, therefore, that Society was obligated to pay him the entire amounts as per Rule 59, but that they have refused to do so without citing any cogent reason. 2. Sri.T.P.Pradeep – learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that the sole reason stated by the Society in **WP(C) NO. 621 OF 2022** **4** denying full statutory gratuity to his client is that they had entered into a gratuity scheme with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) with a limit of Rs.3.5 lakhs; and that the only amount that his client is entitled to. He submitted that this is grossly improper and that law has now been well settled by a learned Full Bench of this Court in _**Chandrasekharan Nair G. & Others v. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Ltd (2017 (4) KLT 276)**_ , that employees are entitled to even additional amounts than what is stipulated under Rule 59 of the “KCS Rules” if any better scheme provides for it; and consequently, on a parity of reasoning, the fact that he has been paid Rs.3.5 lakhs would be no answer to his claim for the entitled amounts under Rule 59 of the “KCS Rules”. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P7 be set aside and the Society be directed to pay to his client the legally entitled gratuity, along with interest, as per Rule 59 of the “KCS Rules”. 3. After saying as afore, Sri.T.P.Pradeep further pointed **WP(C) NO. 621 OF 2022** **5** out that his client had earlier approached this Court, seeking similar reliefs, which had been allowed, along with a batch of cases, through Ext.P6 judgment. He submitted that, subsequently, when Ext.P7 was issued, he had approached this Court through Contempt Case No.1277/2021, which was, however, closed leaving him liberty to challenge Ext.P7; and that his client has been thus constrained to do so, through this writ petition. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be allowed. 4. Sri.P.C.Saisdharan – learned Standing Counsel for the Society, in response, submitted that the law is not as afore argued by Sri.T.P.Pradeep, because his client is entitled only to the amounts eligible under the By-Laws of the Society. He submitted that since the Society has already paid Rs.3.5 lakhs, which was the maximum amount under the Group Gratuity scheme under the LIC, he cannot make any further claim. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed, asserting that Ext.P7 is irreproachable. **WP(C) NO. 621 OF 2022** **6** 5. I have considered the afore rival submissions with great amount of care. 6. As rightly argued by Sri.T.P.Pradeep, the petitioner's claim had been earlier allowed by this Court through Ext.P6 judgment. Of course, there are no specific directions in this judgment, except saying that the reliefs in the writ petition mentioned therein are allowed. 7. _Prima facie_ , therefore, it appears that the petitioner's claim will have to be re-considered by the Society in terms of their By-Laws and the applicable law and it will not be sufficient for them to merely say that the LIC had only paid them Rs.3.5 lakhs. Going by _**Chandrasekharan Nair G.**_ (supra), the law that operates is to the effect that even if the Society obtains a larger amount under a more beneficial scheme, than what is statutorily eligible to an employee, said amount will also have to be paid to him. Therefore, the axiomatic position, namely that even if the Society has paid a lesser amount, the petitioner **WP(C) NO. 621 OF 2022** **7** will be entitled to the sums as per law, would also hold equal force. 8. It is, therefore, luculent that the Society will have to re-consider the petitioner's claim based on Rule 50 of the “KCS Rules” and their By-Laws, verifying the gratuity eligible to him at the time when he retired as per the same. If the amounts disbursed by them exceed such amount, then there would be nothing more to pay; but, on the other hand, if larger amounts are found statutorily entitled to the petitioner, the fact that they have given him Rs.3.5 lakhs, being the amounts paid to them by the LIC under the Group Gratuity Scheme, would be of no avail, and the balance will also have to be paid. 9. In the afore perspective, I am certain that entire matter will require to be reconsidered by the Society, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner's earlier writ petition had been allowed through Ext.P6 judgment. Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P7; **WP(C) NO. 621 OF 2022** **8** with a consequential direction to the Society to hear the petitioner and issue an appropriate order adverting to Ext.P6 judgment and to the observations above, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, if, through the afore exercise, any additional amounts are found eligible to the petitioner, same shall be disbursed to him within a period of two months thereafter, failing which, it shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date on which it became due, until it is actually paid. **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** ANB **9** ## **WP(C) NO. 621 OF 2022** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 621/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |Exhibit -P1|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF| |---|---| ||THE MINUTES BOOK OF THE BANK| |Exhibit -P2|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION| ||DATED 07.05.2014| |Exhibit-P3|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION| ||DATED 16.06.2014| |Exhibit-P4|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED| ||10.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT| |Exhibit-P5|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||23.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT| |Exhibit-P6|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED| ||17/12/2020 IN WP© NO. 9660/2017| |Exhibit-P7|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT DATED 29.04.2021| |Exhibit-P8|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED| ||10/08/2021 IN CONT.CASE © NO.| ||1277/2021| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit -R3(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY| ||THE SR.BR.MANAGER OF THE LIC DATED| ||20/04/2021 TO THE SECRETARY OF THE| ||BANK|