High CourtSingle Judge2014-01-24Writ petition allowed

S. Velayudhan Pillai v. State of Kerala, Vattiyoorkavu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., The Trivandrum District Co-Operative Bank Vattiyoorkavu Branch, and The Kerala State Co-Operative Employees' Pension Board

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 314 of 2011 (L)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2014-01-24
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed. The court directed the second respondent bank to reimburse the balance Rs.27,174 deposited by the petitioner within one month, and to pay interest at 6% per annum from the date of deposit if delayed beyond that period. The bank is responsible for the interest payable on delayed pension, and the officer responsible for such default shall bear liability; the society shall not be burdened with this liability. If the bank has any disputes, they must be raised before the appropriate forum, and this order shall not delay the disbursement of the directed amounts.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

S. Velayudhan Pillai

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary Co-operative Society Department, Government Secretariate Trivandrum-695001
Vattiyoorkavu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No-1652, Vattiyoorkavu, Trivandrum represented by its Secretary-695614
The Trivandrum District Co-Operative Bank Vattiyoorkavu Branch, represented by its Secretary Trivandrum-695614
The Kerala State Co-operative Employees' Pension Board, Kala Nivas, P.B.NO.85, Chinmaya Lane, Trivandrum-695001, represented by its Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. M. Ramaswamy Pillai
• Sri. P. M. Joseph

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader SMT. K.T. Lilly
• Sri P. Raveendran Pillai
• Smt. Indira Raveendran
• Sri Thomas Abraham, SC
• Sri K.R. Sunil, SC
• Sri K.G. Radhakrishnan, SC
• Sri P.V. Mohanan, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, S. Velayudhan Pillai, is a retired employee of the 2nd respondent bank who retired on 31 May 2010 as Assistant Secretary after more than 28 years of service starting from 14 November 1981. His pension was not sanctioned because the amount payable under the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Self-Financing Pension Scheme had not been remitted by the bank, and the computation had to be done by the Pension Board’s Verification Officer. A September 2010 demand memo quantified a balance of Rs.94,271; the bank remitted Rs.67,097 and disputed the calculation. An interim order on 26 September 2011 allowed the petitioner to deposit Rs.27,174 to the Pension Board, leaving the liability to be resolved later. Pension was eventually sanctioned and arrears paid. The dispute centers on the proper computation of pension and who bears the deficit. The petitioner, being a pensioner, is not challenging the Board’s demand, and the scheme contemplates that the Verification Officer computes the amounts. The court notes the joining date in the contributory provident fund (CPF) affects pension computation, a point supported by Purushothaman v. Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board. The court directs the bank to reimburse the Rs.27,174 deposited by the petitioner and provides for 6% interest on delayed pension if payment is not completed within a month, while clarifying that the society bears no liability for the delay. The petition is allowed with costs, and the bank is urged to pursue any disputes in appropriate fora.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala State Co-operative Employees Self-Financing Pension SchemeClause 28A (appeal provision)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he is entitled to pension as his service qualifies under the Pension Scheme and that the delay in sanction arose from the bank’s failure to remit the due pension fund amounts. The bank’s computation dispute, reflected in the balance of Rs.94,271 demanded by the Pension Board and the bank’s remittance of Rs.67,097, led to an interim order allowing the petitioner to deposit Rs.27,174. The petitioner seeks only interest on the delayed pension and reimbursement of the Rs.27,174 deposited, not to challenge the Pension Board’s demand. The Pension Board’s verification officer is the proper authority for computation, and the scheme provides for a remedy under Clause 28A; the pensioner should not be prejudiced by internal disputes. The court’s role is to ensure disbursement and to direct reimbursement, while noting that any dispute may be raised through the proper forum.

Contentions of Respondents

The bank argues that the date of joining the CPF (14.11.1981) should govern pension calculations and that there is limited or no record to prove otherwise; the bank contends against the amount computed by the Pension Board’s verification officer, and questions the additional Rs.27,174 deposit. The bank highlights the remedy under Clause 28A for appeals and disputes, and asserts that the pension computation should be resolved through proper channels rather than through a writ petition. Counsel for the respondents emphasizes that the bank’s liability must be determined by the appropriate authority and that delays in pension disbursal stem from disputes over computation, which should be resolved in the proper forum while ensuring timely pension disbursement to the petitioner.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Purushothaman v. Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board	2011(3) KLT 250	Positive	The court relies on this decision to interpret that the service counted for pension depends on the date of joining in the contributory provident fund.

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 S. Velayudhan Pillai v. State of Kerala, Vattiyoorkavu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., The Trivandrum District Co-Operative Bank Vattiyoorkavu Branch, and The Kerala State Co-Operative Employees' Pension Board 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/4TH MAGHA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 314 of 2011 (L)** **--------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** **--------------------** **S.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, S/O.SUBBIAH PILLAI, HINDU, AGED 59 RESIDING AT PRAVEEN NIVAS, CHERIA KONNI CHERIAKONNI P.O., ARUVIKARA, NEDUMANGAD TRIVANDRUM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.P.M.JOSEPH** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** **----------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE TRIVANDRUM-695001** **2. VATTIYOORKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO-1652, VATTIYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-695614** **3. THE TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK VATTIYOORKAVU BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TRIVANDRUM-695614** **4. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES' PENSION BOARD, KALA NIVAS, P.B.NO.85, CHINMAYA LANE, TRIVANDRUM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY** **R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.T. LILLY R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI** **SMT.INDIRA RAVEENDRAN** **R3 BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC** - **SRI.C.K.JAYAKUMAR, SC, TVM. DIST. CO.OP.BANK LTD. R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.SUNIL, SC** - **SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHAN, SC** **SRI.P.V.MOHANAN, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** **WP(C).No. 314 of 2011 (L)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :** **EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE PENSION DOCKET DATED 5.2.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 7.7.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 23.11.2009. EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.5.2010. EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.6.2010. EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.6.2009. EXT.P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.5.2010 BY NO. HO/274/2010. EXT.P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16-6-2010. EXT.P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-2-2011. EXT.P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8-3-2011. EXT.P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DD DATED 29.9.2011. EXT.P12 COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 44/2012 DATED 19-11-2012.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :** - **EXT.R2(a) : TRUE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS RELATING TO THE PAYMENTS MADE AND THE PAYMENTS DUE TO THE CONTRIBUTORY PROVIDENT FUND.** **EXT.R2(b) TRUE PERFORMA FOR CALCULATION OF PENSION FUND OF THE PETITIONER.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** ............................................................... WPC No.314 of 2011 ............................................................... Dated this the 24[th] day of January 2014 ## Judgment The petitioner was an employee of the 2[nd] respondent bank who retired from the service of the bank on 31.05.2010 as Assistant Secretary. Admittedly, the petitioner joined the service of the bank on 14.11.1981 and had unblemished service of more than 28 years. Despite the petitioner having retired in 2010, the petitioner's application for pension was not considered for reason of the bank having not paid the amounts as per the pension fund, which has to be computed by the verification officer of the Pension Board constituted under the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Self-Financing Pension Scheme. It is also a fact that the service of an employee, which is counted for the purpose of pension would depend upon the date of joining of the employee in the contributory provident fund, which is declared in the decision in **Purushothaman v. Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board** (2011(3) KLT 250). WPC No.314 of 2011 2 2. On the pension being not sanctioned, the petitioner was here with the above writ petition, in which, the Pension Board raised a contention that despite the demand notice being issued to the second respondent bank for remittance of the balance amount of Rs.94,271/-, the bank remitted only an amount of Rs.67,097/and hence the delay in sanctioning the pension. In such circumstances, this Court, by virtue of interim order dated 26.09.2011, permitted the petitioner to pay the deficient amount being Rs.27,174/- to the Pension Board, leaving open the question as to whose liability the deficiency would be; to be considered later in the writ petition. The petitioner, hence remitted the said amount to the Pension Board and thereafter, pension was sanctioned to him. The petitioner has also been paid the arrears and is getting regular pension. 3. What survives in the writ petition is only the claim for interest for the delayed pension as also the claim for Rs.27,174/to be reimbursed by the second respondent bank. Essentially, what comes to fore from the pleadings in the writ petition is that there is a dispute between the Pension Board and the second respondent Bank as to the actual computation of pension. Going WPC No.314 of 2011 3 by the counter affidavit of the Pension Board, it is seen that it was the contention of the second respondent bank as also the pensioner/petitioner, the date of joining in the contributory provident fund was 14.11.1981. There were no records available in the bank to prove the same. However, the bank also having admitted the said date of joining in the contributory provident fund, that is the date on which the petitioner joined the service of the bank for the purpose of disbursal of pension and the Verification Officer calculated the pension contribution, for the petitioner as Rs.3,41,038/- upto May 2010, i.e., the month of retirement of the petitioner. The bank had remitted Rs.2,46,767/-. Hence the verification officer of the Pension Board issued a demand notice dated 15.09.2010 for the balance amount of Rs.94,271/-. However, the bank chose to remit only Rs.67,097/- and claims to have filed an objection to the computation. The learned counsel for the respondent bank invites the attention of this Court to the computation made by the Secretary fo the bank, produced as Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) to substantiate their contention that they are not liable to pay as much amounts as computed by the verification officer of the Pension Board. WPC No.314 of 2011 4 4. It has to be primarily noticed that the writ petition is filed by the pensioner and there is no challenge against the demand made by the Pension Board to the second respondent Bank. It is not disputed that, as early as in September 2010, the Verification Officer of the Pension Board had raised a demand for Rs.94,271/. It is very evident from the provisions of the scheme that it is for the Verification Officer to compute the amounts and no authority is conferred on the Secretary of the society or the Managing Committee, to compute the amounts due to the pension fund with respect to a superannuated employee. It is also pertinent that the scheme itself provides for a remedy of appeal before the Government under Clause 28A. Evidently, that has also not been resorted to by the second respondent bank. In such circumstances, the petitioner, a pensioner cannot be prejudiced insofar as the contentions raised by the bank against the pension board that too in a writ petition filed by the superannuated employee. 5. On the above findings, there will be a direction to the second respondent bank to forthwith reimburse the balance amount of Rs.27,174/-, remitted by the petitioner, to the petitioner, WPC No.314 of 2011 5 at any rate within a period of one month from today failing which the second respondent bank shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% from the date of deposit of the said amount by the pensioner to the Pension Board and also be further liable for interest at the rate of 6% for the delayed payment of pension amounts. The society shall not be mulcted with such liability and the officer who defaults in making such payment shall be mulcted with such liability. However, the society shall pay the interest portion and recover it from the officer who committed the said default. If the second respondent has any dispute, then necessarily, it has to be raised before the appropriate forum, which has not been done till date and that need not detain the second respondent bank from disbursing the amounts directed to be paid by this judgment. The writ petition is hence allowed with the above observations leaving the parties to suffer their costs. ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** sta WPC No.314 of 2011 6 WPC No.314 of 2011 7