K.K. Lakshmanan v. Chairman, Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board; Secretary, Vatakara Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Kakkatil, Vadakara

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI** **FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2014/11TH MAGHA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 23731 of 2004 (A)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER :** **--------------------** **K.K.LAKSHMANAN, AREEKKAL HOUSE, CHEEKKANNUMMAL (P.O) SECRETARY (RETIRED), VADAKARA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, KAKKATIL.** **BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K.** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** **----------------------------** **1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **2. THE SECRETARY,** **VATAKARA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, (P.O) KAKKATIL, VADAKARA.** **R1 BY ADVS. SRI. K.R. SUNIL R2 BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2014, THE COURT ON 31-01-2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** ## **WP(C).No. 23731 of 2004 (A)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :** **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE SECRETARY DATED 1.7.1970. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY, PENSION BOARD FROM THE PETITIONER DATED 19.1.2000. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE BANK TO THE PENSION BOARD DATED 8.2.2000.** **EXT.P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.10.2003.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :** **EXT.R1(a) LETTER DATED 31.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE VERIFICATION OFFICER TO THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR/SECRETARY. EXT.R2(a) : COPY OF DETAILS OF REMITTANCE OF PENSION FUND OF THE PETITIONER.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE Mn** ## **A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J** --------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.23731 of 2004 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of January, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** Whether the period from the date of joining service of a Co-operative employee be reckoned for calculating the qualifying service for the Kerala Co-operative employees provident fund on the strength of a subsequent decision of the Co-operative Society/Bank to make contribution to the aforesaid fund with retrospective effect? This is the short question to be answered in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner demitted the office as Secretary from the Vadakara Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Kakkatil on 31.1.1999. He was in service of the bank from 7.9.1964. The Kerala Cooperative employees fund was introduced in the year 1969. The second respondent bank by Resolution No.9 dated 31.7.1995 has decided to contribute to the provident fund with effect from the date of the petitioner's WPC No.23731 of 2004 2 joining service, i.e., retrospectively. The petitioner alleges that as per the aforesaid decision, the entire arrears was paid to the first respondent Board. 3. His grievance is that in spite of the decision taken by the respondent bank the first respondent has calculated the qualifying service of eligibility for pension with effect from 1.1.1970 only. Thus, he has come up before this Court. 4. The first respondent filed a counter wherein it is alleged that the respondent bank has calculated the contributory pension fund on the date of entry of the service of the petitioner only after the formation of the Pension Board with a view to invest the pension. Therefore, the Board in its meeting on 17.12.1999 decided not to accept the claim of the bank. 5. It is further alleged that being a self financing pension scheme, the Pension Board collected pension contribution from the bank to give pension to the employees coming under the scheme. The pension is calculated on the basis of the average pay of last 10 months of the employees. Here, the bank with a mala fide intention has remitted the pension fund from the WPC No.23731 of 2004 3 date of entry of the petitioner in service, it is alleged. If the claim is admitted, the board will have to pay monthly pension at the rate of Rs.5729/-. It is also contended that if the Pension Board has sanctioned any excess amount to any pensioner in the sanctioned order, there is a specific provision for refund or future adjustment of such excess amount. Therefore, according to the first respondent, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents quite in extenso. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner joined the service of the bank on 7.9.1964 and demitted his office on 31.1.1999 as Secretary after completing 34 years and four months of continuing service. It is an admitted fact that the Kerala Co-operative employees provident fund was introduced in the year 1969. The respondent bank took the resolution on 31.7.1995 to contribute to the provident fund with effect from the date of the petitioner's entry in service. 8. As per Section 19(1)(a) of the Kerala Co- WPC No.23731 of 2004 4 operative employees self financing pension scheme, the qualifying service is calculated from the date of joining the provident fund scheme. As per the decision of the bank referred to above, contribution was also paid. The stand taken by the respondent Board is that the bank's decision is subsequent in point of time and the same cannot be made retrospective as per Rule 58. 9. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no bar in Rule 58 making the contribution retrospective. It was also pointed out that as the board has accepted the contribution, the board cannot later on deny the benefits which have already accrued to the petitioner on the strength of the decision taken by the bank. The position is well settled after the decision of this Court in **Sukumaran** v **Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board, Triavandrum and another** (2010(4) KHC 859) which was later followed by this Court in **Purushothaman** v **Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board** (2011(3) KLT 250). Both these decisions make it clear that going by clause 19 read with paragraph 39 of the Pension Scheme, the WPC No.23731 of 2004 5 relevant date for computing the length of qualifying service is the date on which the employee joined the contributory fund. The reason is obvious. Only a person who joins the fund is entitled to the benefit of the fund subsequent to his requirement. The contributions to the fund will fetch interest and the same would help to a considerable extent in giving pension to the members subsequent to the retirement. If the argument of the petitioner is accepted, it will only pave way to create artificial eligibility by making contributions at the fag end of the service with the connivance of the Co-operative Society or Bank under which the employee is working. If such a course is permitted, the whole purpose sought to be achieved by the Pension Fund Scheme would be defeated. 10. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent board has accepted the contribution does not hold good because as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent, these contributions are made on the basis of the calculations made by the concerned society or the bank. WPC No.23731 of 2004 6 11. As pointed out in the counter filed by the first respondent, if the Pension Board has sanctioned any excess amount to any pensioner in the sanction order, there is a specific provision for refund of future adjustments of such excess, if any. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the definite view that the petitioner is not entitled to obtain the relief as prayed for in this writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. **sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE** css/ TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE