LAWS(KER)-2020-3-469

THOMAS JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On March 06, 2020
THOMAS JOHN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are Daily Installment Loan Collection Agents working under the Kollam District Co-operative Bank, have filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P13 and seeking for a declaration that, all the petitioners are entitled to get regularization in the post of Daily Installment Collection Agents as sought for in Ext.P6 Board Resolution, in view of Ext.P3 and P8 circulars.

(2.) The petitioners state that, they were appointed as Daily Installment Loan Collection Agent in the branches of the 4 th respondent Co-operative Bank. They were so appointed during 2004-05 on provisional basis and are still continuing. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 and P8 circulars, enabling regularization of all Loan Collection Agents like the petitioners, having not less than 6 months of service. Accordingly, the 4 th respondent Bank passed Ext.P4 resolution dated 29.10.2005 and thereafter Ext.P6 resolution dated 05.06.2006, requesting the Registrar of Co- operative Society to sanction and approve regularization of service of eligible employees like the petitioners. This Court as per Ext.P11 and P12 judgments, directed the Registrar to consider and pass orders on the request made in Ext.P4 and P6 resolution. However, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies as per Ext.P13 order dated 04.04.2007, rejected the request of the Bank for regularization of employees like the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioners contend that, the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to decide the issue, which ought to have been decided by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P13 order has been passed adopting a hypertechnical interpretation of Ext.P8 circular. Such interpretation will defeat the very object of Ext.P8 circular. The petitioner further submits that the 3rd respondent was functioning as Part Time Administrator of the 4th respondent bank. And therefore the 3rd respondent ought not have ventured to consider and decide the issue of regularizing the services of collection agents as requested in Ext.P4 and P6.