P.R. Geetha v. Paravoor Mahila Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941** **WP(C).No.40396 OF 2018(Y)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **P.R. GEETHA, AGED 58 YEARS PUZHAVOOR DIVYA BHAVAN, NATHIYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE PARAVOOR MAHILA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD. NO. 1259 NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM 683513, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G) ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, B-2 BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 030** - **3 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM 683513** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.M.SASINDRAN** ## **SMT. C S SHEEJA SR GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 40396/18 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner prays that the 1[st] respondent-Society be directed to pay her the eligible balance gratuity, namely Rs.1,53, 374/with 10% interest from the date of her retirement, asserting that, in Ext.P6 order, which is impugned herein, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) has made a mistake in ordering that only an amount of Rs.8,30,826/- is due to her as gratuity, since that was the only amount paid by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC for short), under the Group Insurance Scheme, but not the full gratuity entitled to her. 2. The petitioner says that she has put in 31 years and 6 months of continuous service and therefore, that she is entitled to get 15 months salary as gratuity, in terms of Section 62 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (KCS Act) and Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies WPC 40396/18 3 Rules (KCS Rules). She says that she has been paid only Rs.8,00,055/- instead of Rs.9,53,429/calculated as per the statutory provisions, and therefore, that this amount be directed to be paid with interest. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent-Society, Sri.M.Sasindran, submits that as is clear from Ext.R1(a) Pension dockets prepared by them and sent to the Pension Board, the petitioner has only 27 years and 11 months of service, since her continuous service began only from 01.12.1988 and that there was a break of 1 year 7 months, during which, she was on leave without allowance. He says, therefore, that the action of the Society is completely in order and that this Writ Petition be, therefore, dismissed. 4. In answer to the above, Sri.P.P.Jacoblearned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client admittedly joined the service on WPC 40396/18 4 01.12.1986, as is clear from Ext.R1(a), but that she has been given the benefit of continuous service only with effect from 01.12.1988 by the Society, excluding the period spent by her on probation and that going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Netram Sahu v. State of** ## **Chhattisgarh and Another [(2018) 5 SCC 430]** , his client is entitled to both the period; which she spent under probation, as well as the period during which she was on Leave Without Allowance. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P6 be set aside and that the Society be directed to give his client the eligible gratuity forthwith. 5. When I consider the afore submissions and examine the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Netram Sahu** (supra), it is clear that the petitioner's claim, based on her actual entry into the service and her entitlement to gratuity even taking note of the period sent by her under Leave Without Allowance, has not been WPC 40396/18 5 considered by any of the Authorities or by the Society. In Ext.P6, there is absolutely no reason stated by the Assistant Registrar as to why the petitioner is entitled only to an amount of Rs.8,30,826/- and the basis of the calculation of the said amount has not been shown therein. Obviously, therefore, I cannot find favour with this order and I am certain that the competent Authorities must reconsider this issue immediately, taking note of the ratio in **Netram Sahu** (supra). In the afore circumstances and without entering into the controversy on its merits at this stage, I deem it appropriate to order this Writ Petition and to quash Ext.P6 order, not because I have affirmatively held against it, but so as to pave way for a fresh consideration by the same Authority, taking note of **Netram Sahu** (supra) as well as the entries in Ext.R1(a) pension docket, which clearly shows that WPC 40396/18 6 commencement of service of the petitioner is from 01.12.1986. The said Authority will also consider the contentions as to whether the period spent by the petitioner under probation and under Leave Without Allowance can be excluded for the purpose of gratuity or otherwise and then issue the resultant order in terms of law without any further delay, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to both sides. The afore exercise shall be completed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have adopted the afore course only because Ext.P6 order has been issued by the Assistant Registrar; and therefore, for any reason, the said Authority, after the afore exercise, is of the view that WPC 40396/18 7 the parties must approach other Forums, including under Section 69 of the KCS Act, then he will be at liberty to order so in the resultant proceedings; however, citing specific reasons for such opinion. **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 40396/18 8 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATD 5-7-2018 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 30-07-2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 12-072018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 16-07-2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT OF THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 31-07-2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 29-09-2018 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PENSION DOCKET EXT.R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY PAYMENT REGISTER EXT.R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE NOS.1 TO 6 OF EXT R1(A)