High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-07-10Writ petition disposed of; liberty to approach ...

K.M.Licy; A.K.Ganga; Ambika C.K. v. Nedungapara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.28773 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji
Judgment Date: 2024-07-10
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Arbitration Court within one month from today. If the same is filed, the Arbitration Court shall dispose of the matter within four months thereafter. The Arbitration Court alone is empowered to adjudicate the disputes concerning the pay revision and the recovery.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; liberty to approach Arbitration Court within one month; ARC to decide within four months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.M.Licy
A. K. Ganga
Ambika C. K.

Respondents

The Nedungapara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. E 135, represented by its Secretary, Nedungapra P. O., Ernakulam District - 683 545
The Board of Directors of the Nedungapra Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. E 135, represented by its President, Nedungapra P. O., Ernakulam District - 683 545
The Assistant Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, Kunnathunadu, Ernakulam District - 682 542
The Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, Ernakulam, Civil Station, Kakkanad, Ernakulam District - 682 030
The Registrar of Co-operative Societies Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. R. Harikumar
• Sri. Arjun Raghavan

Counsels for Respondents

• George Poonthottam (Sr.)
• Nisha George
• Fathima Amreen Jamal
• Sr. GP
• Bimal K. Nath

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, in W.P.(C) 28773 of 2020, examines pay fixation anomalies of employees of the Nedungapara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. The petitioners—K.M. Licy (retired 30.04.2018), A.K. Ganga (retired 31.03.2020), and Ambika C.K. (retired 31.08.2014)—challenged denial of the pay revision ordered by G.O. (P) No. 118/2015/COOP, with effect from 01.04.2014. The bank argued the anomaly traced back to fixation in 1989, and raised the issue for the first time in 2015, while audits did not raise objections earlier. The bank said excess payments were made due to wrong fixation and that the petitioners should pursue the remedy before the Co-operative Arbitration Court (ARC). The petition sought mandamus to recalculate arrears under Ext P1 and to disburse remaining arrears, gratuity, and leave salary with interest. Respondents argued res judicata because a prior writ petition (C) No. 35478 of 2017, dismissed as not pressed, barred this petition; they also cited a decision in General Manager v. Mukundan, emphasizing ARC for service-related issues. The court ultimately held that pay revision disputes and recoveries are to be adjudicated by the ARC and disposed of the writ petition with liberty to approach ARC within one month, directing ARC to decide within four months.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O (P) No.118/2015/Coop

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Res Judicata

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners seek a mandamus directing the respondents to recalculate salary arrears based on the Ext-P1 pay revision order without revising salaries drawn before retirement, and to disburse the balance salary arrears, gratuity, leave salary and other allowances as per Exts-P9, P12, P13, with interest, within a court-ordered time frame. They argue that the pay fixation anomaly stems from earlier incorrect fixation and that the bank’s subsequent actions did not rectify the error adequately. The petition asserts a clear entitlement to arrears and to codified pay revision benefits, and seeks speedy redressal through the High Court when administrative channels fail.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that there is an efficacious alternative remedy before the Co-operative Arbitration Court (ARC). They urge that the petition is barred by res judicata in light of WP(C) No.35478 of 2017 (dismissed as not pressed). They submit that discrepancies were identified only in 2015, and that any excess payments arose from wrong fixation; they emphasize that disputed pay revisions and recoveries fall within ARC’s purview, not the writ court, and request dismissal or dismissal-subject-to-ARC remand.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
General Manager, Thalassery Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., v. Mukundan and Another	2021 (1) KHC 551	Positive	The court relies on this decision to support that service-related issues arising from pay fixation/revision are to be adjudicated by the Co-operative Arbitration Court (ARC), guiding the current matter toward ARC rather than direct court adjudication.
WP(C) No.35478 of 2017	WP(C) 35478/2017	Mentioned Only	Cited as Ext.P6 to show prior petition was dismissed as not pressed; used by respondents to argue res judicata, but not treated as controlling on merits in the present case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 K.M.Licy; A.K.Ganga; Ambika C.K. v. Nedungapara Service 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 BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1946 ## W.P.(C) NO.28773 OF 2020 ## PETITIONERS: - 1 K.M.LICY, AGED 60 YEARS, EMBASSERIL HOUSE, IRINGOLE P. O., KURUPPAMPADY, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 548. - 2 A. K. GANGA, PUTHENPURA HOUSE, THURUTHY P. O., KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 545. - 3 AMBIKA C. K., KATTUNGAL HOUSE, CHUNDAKUZHI P. O., KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 545. BY ADVS. T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN ## RESPONDENTS: 1 THE NEDUNGAPARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. E 135, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEDUNGAPRA P. O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 545. - 2 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NEDUNGAPRA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. E 135, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, NEDUNGAPRA P. O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 545. - 3 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 542. 2 _WPC. 28773/2020_ 4 THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 030. 5 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE SMT.FATHIMA AMREEN JAMAL SR. GP SRI. BIMAL K. NATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 3 _WPC. 28773/2020_ ## JUDGMENT **==> picture [104 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** The petitioners were employees of the 1[st] respondent bank in various posts. The 1[st] petitioner retired on 30.04.2018, the 2[nd] petitioner retired on 31.03.2020, and the 3[rd] petitioner retired on 31.08.2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The 1[st] respondent is classified as Class-I Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society with effect from 01.04.2013 onwards. As per G.O (P) No.118/2015/Coop, the Government had ordered the revision of pay of employees of Primary Co-operative Societies with effect from 01.04.2014. The petitioners were denied the benefit of pay revision on the ground that an anomaly had occurred while fixing the pay of the petitioners with effect from 01.04.1989. The said objection was raised only for the 1[st] time in 2015. In none of the audits which the department conducted, there was no objection regarding the fixation of pay of 4 _WPC. 28773/2020_ the petitioners. Pointing out these facts, the petitioner filed individual representations before the 1[st] respondent. 3. The society has given a reply to the representation submitted by the 3[rd] petitioner stating that they have sought clarification from the Registrar Co-operative Societies. Once the decision is obtained, the same will be completed. The administrative committee decided on 10.06.2019 to disburse the arrears to the petitioners. Thereafter, the new managing committee also took charge. They did not sanction the amount suggested by the administrative committee but disbursed only a lesser amount to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this court seeking the following reliefs. _i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents 3 to 5 to recalculate the salary arrears of the petitioners based on Ext-P1 pay revision order without revising the salary which were drawn prior to their retirement and to disburse the balance amount of salary arrears, gratuity and leave salary and all other allowances, as per Exts-P9, P12 and P13 statements, with interest within a time limit prescribed by this Hon’ble Court; and_ 5 _WPC. 28773/2020_ _ii) to grant such other relief’s as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances of this case._ 4. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, in which it is contended that the petitioners ought to have approached the Arbitration Court as there is an efficacious and alternate remedy. Moreover, the writ petition is barred by the principles of _res judicata_ , as the petitioners have already approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No.35478 of 2017, which was dismissed as not pressed (Ext.P6). To clarify the doubts regarding the discrepancies that occurred in the fixation of pay in 1989, an application was submitted by the bank to the Joint Registrar on 18.07.2016. The discrepancies regarding pay revision were identified only on 17.05.2015. The petitioners were given excess payment on account of the payment of salary in a higher grade and in consonance with the rights of the employees concerned or due to the wrong fixation of the employees’, salaries. Therefore, any excess amount disbursed is liable to be 6 _WPC. 28773/2020_ recovered from the petitioners. Therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The counsel for the respondents, Smt.Fathima Amreen Jamal, relied on the judgment of this Court _General Manager,_ _Thalassery Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., v. Mukundan and Another (2021 (1) KHC 551)_ , in which, it has held that: _“13. Viewing the question in this backdrop, we are also of the view that the learned Single Judge has correctly upheld the Ext P5 order. In other words, it is not a money claim simpliciter but service related issues also are required to be adjudicated by the 2nd respondent and then only he will be able to quantify the amount, if any, liable to be paid by the appellant. We may hasten to add that we shall not be understood to have held that the 1st respondent is entitled to such service benefits as claimed. In other words, we make it clear that we have not made any observation on merits in regard to such issues. We also make it clear that we have not made any opinion as to the legal entitlement of the 1st respondent to raise such issues in ARC No.22/2017 in view of the earlier litigations as also his entitlement to such service benefits. That can be done only by the Co-operative Arbitration Court.”_ The prayer of the petitioners is for a direction to respondents 3 to 5 to recalculate the salary arrears of the petitioners based on Ext.P1 pay revision order without revising the salary which was 7 _WPC. 28773/2020_ drawn prior to their retirement and to disburse the balance amount of salary arrears, gratuity and leave salary and all other allowances. The said calculation cannot be done by the respondents 3 to 5. The Arbitration Court alone is empowered to adjudicate the disputes concerning the pay revision and the recovery. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Arbitration Court within one month from today. If the same is filed, the same shall be disposed of by the Arbitration Court within a period of four months thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of. _Sd/-_ BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE ss 8 _WPC. 28773/2020_ ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28773/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.118/2015/CO-OP. DATED 17.09.2015. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.09.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.06.2017. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.06.2017. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.06.2017. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.06.2019 IN WP(C) NO.35478 OF 2017. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.X DATED 10.06.2019 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.XI DATED 10.06.2019 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT DUE AS ON 30.04.2018 AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 04.03.2020, ACCEPTING THE GRATUITY AMOUNT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 04.03.2020, ACCEPTING THE LEAVE SALARY AMOUNT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING ACTUAL AMOUNT DUE AND AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT DUE TOWARDS SALARY ARREARS AND EARNED LEAVE SURRENDER TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.