Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1944 PETITIONERS:
1 SUNITHA.A.P., U.D.CLERK, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 2 SREEVIDYA.V.J., U.D.CLERK, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 3 SREEKALA.R.S., U.D.CLERK, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR SMT.AMRUTHA SANJEEV SMT.SHEMA ELIZABETH SCARIA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 3 KERALA STATE CO OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014, REPRRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC SMT. RESMI THOMAS - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, who are working as Upper Division Clerks (UDC) in the services of the Kerala State Co-operative Employees' Pension Board (for short 'the Board') have approached this Court assailing Ext.P9 order of the Government, which has found the First Time Bound Higher Grade given to them earlier, to be erroneous; with a further direction to the Board to recover such amounts from them.
2. Smt.Amrutha Sanjeev - learned counsel for the
petitioners, submitted that Ext.P9 is egregiously improper because, nothing is stated therein as to why the Government has found the First Time Bound Higher Grade granted to her clients to be illegal or unlawful. She explains that the
Government had, in the year 2009, issued a Pay Revision order
for its employees and permission was granted to effect such Revision with respect to the employees of the Board also. She pointed out that the Government thereafter clarified that the First Time Bound Higher Grade can be given to the employees of the Board; and that they were thus given the said benefit, after completion of eight years of service, on 01.04.2014. She
then added that the Government issued a subsequent Pay Revision order with respect to the employees of the Board in the year 2015, consequent to which, its staff pattern was also approved by the Government. She submitted that it is in such manner that the Board granted her clients the benefits of the First Time Bound Higher Grade, along with its arrears and approached the Government for ratification, which has now
been rejected through Ext.P9. She, therefore, prayed that Ext.P9 be quashed.
3. Sri.M.Sasindran, learned standing counsel for the third
respondent - Pension Board, on the contrary, submitted that his client had explained to the Government the reasons why the petitioners were given the Time Bound Higher Grade, along with arrears; but that this does not appear to have been considered by them in its proper perspective, while issuing Ext.P9. He, therefore, contended that there is nothing else that his client could have done in these circumstances.
4. The learned Government Pleader - Smt.Resmi Thomas,
appearing for the official respondents, submitted that Ext.P9 clearly records that the grant of Time Bound Higher Grade to the petitioners, along with its arrears, was contrary to the decisions of the Government referred to therein and therefore that an explanation has been sought from the Board, along with a direction to them to recover the amounts paid to the petitioners. She, therefore, argued that no fault can be found against Ext.P9 and thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
5. Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader on
the afore lines, the fact remains that Ext.P9 is a laconic order, without citing the reason why the Government has found the disbursement of the benefits under the Time Bound Higher Grade to the petitioners to be impermissible.
6. True, the said order says that the action of the Board
in doing so is contrary to the “decision of the Government”, but without clarifying what they mean by it. Pertinently, it is on such basis that Ext.P9 seeks the explanation of the Board, with a further direction that the amounts paid to the petitioners be recovered.
7. I must say that I cannot find favour with Ext.P9 at all
for the afore reasons and also because, before an order was made to recover amounts from the employees, the established procedure and ought to have been followed, rather than edifice
it on the unsubstantiated allegation that the same were given to them contrary to the earlier directions of the Government. The fact that the pension Board had sought clarifications from the Government before implementing the Pay Revision and the further fact that its staff pattern was approved by it, had not been considered by the Government, while issuing Ext.P9; and it is also relevant that the Board released the arrears of the amounts to the petitioners only on 05.05.2020, after the afore
processes had been completed. Though the Board then sought the ratification of the Government for such purpose, without considering any of the afore aspects in its proper perspective, Ext.P9 has been issued, but without even adverting to the reasons that weighed the Board in acceding benefits to the petitioners, as has been explained by them in Ext.P8.
8. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition
and set aside Ext.P9; however, leaving liberty to the Government to take an apposite decision on Ext.P8, taking note of all relevant aspects, which shall be done not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that if, through the afore exercise, the Government is to again find that the recovery against the petitioners is necessary, then the same shall be implemented only after communicating the resultant order to them, so as to enable them to invoke their appropriate remedies as may be available to them in law.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2261/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.259/2004/CO OP DATED 11.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.63/2013/CO-OP DATED 02.05.2013 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.06.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS)NO.17/2017/CO OP DATED 19.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.38/2019/CO OP DATED 16.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 13.08.2021 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE 9TH PAY REVISION ORDER ISSUED AS PER G.O(P) RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2(c) True copy of the letter No. A3/209/2017/Co- op, dated 11/10/2018. Exhibit R2(a) True copy of the relevant extract of G.O
(P) No. 85/2011/Fin, dated 26/02/2011 along with table 1. Exhibit R2(b) True copy of the letter No. A3/209/2017/Co- op dated 08/06/2018.