(2012) 233 KLR 711 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/22ND POUSHA 1933 WPC.No. 23177 of 2008 (H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- V.N.NARAYANA KURUPPU S/O.KALYANIYAMMA, VARANATT KIZHAKKEVEETIL, KORATTY SOUTH P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 308 BY ADVS.SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.SHERRY J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- --- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, P.B.NO.85,KALA NIVAS CHINMAYA LANE, KUNNUPURAM, NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -1 2. KORATTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK KORATTY PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT RERPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3. KORATTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BANK DIRECTOR BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT KORATTY P.O., THRISSUR R1 BY SRI.P.V.MOHANAN,SC,K.ST.CO.OP.EMP.PENSION R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL R2-3 BY SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.) R2-3 BY SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL R2-3 BY SRI.DIJO SEBASTIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * W.P.C.No.23177 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January 2012 ------------------------------------------------------ Head Note:- Pension - If an employee was not eligible for pension, it should have been made clear even while receiving the contributions and not after considerable period of time. Apart from that the authority of the Registrar in making the appointments cannot be found to be wrong by the Pension Board and while denying the pension of the employees the Board cannot adjudicate on the issue whether the appointment is bad for any reason. Therefore it is quite irregular on the part of the 1st respondent to have rejected the application for pension when a person attained superannuation as early as on 31/3/2002 and the documents were received much earlier. J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from the service of 2nd and 3rd respondent Bank on 31/3/2002 while working as Peon on attaining superannuation. Despite the fact that his pension papers were processed, the 1st respondent by Ext.P5 returned the pension documents on the ground that as per the decision of the Pension Board, petitioner is not entitled for the pension since his appointment was on 14/08/1992 while he was aged 38 years. Hence, by Ext.P5, the contributions received were returned to the Secretary of the Bank with interest. 2. According to the petitioner, the Pension Board has no right to declare that the appointment of the petitioner is in any way bad and being an authority to maintain the pension of the State Co-operative employees it cannot undo an appointment confirmed by the appointing authority. According to the petitioner, only the appointing authority has jurisdiction to consider whether appointment of the petitioner is in accordance with law or not. Since the appointment of the petitioner had already been approved by the appointing authority namely the Registrar with effect from 17/11/1984, it is not open for the pension board to take a different view in the matter and cannot declare his appointment as bad in law, disentitling him from getting pension. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Pension Board contended that as per Rules of the Pension Board, it is well within its authority to verify whether the appointment made by the Registrar is in accordance with the Rules framed by the Board. 4. Respondents 2 and 3 has filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that the appointment of the petitioner is in accordance with law and that he was entitled for pension and that all necessary contributions have been remitted in proper time and pension papers were sent immediately on superannuation. 5. I do not think the contention urged by the 1st respondent has any basis. If an employee was not eligible for pension, it should have been made clear even while receiving the contributions and not after considerable period of time. Apart from that the authority of the Registrar in making the appointments cannot be found to be wrong by the Pension Board and while denying the pension of the employees the Board cannot adjudicate on the issue whether the appointment is bad for any reason. Therefore it is quite irregular on the part of the 1st respondent to have rejected the application for pension when a person attained superannuation as early as on 31/3/2002 and the documents were received much earlier. 6. In any view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled for the pension and therefore this writ petition is allowed as follows: i) That Ext.P5 is set aside. ii) The 2nd respondent Secretary shall return the cheque specified in Ext.P5 along with a copy of this judgment to the 1st respondent as early as possible. iii) The 1st respondent is directed to pay the due pension to the petitioner as early as possible and not later than one month from the date of receipt of the documents from the 2nd respondent. (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr |
