PARAMESWARAN KARTHA Vs. ASST REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in O. P. No. 985 of 1992 is a Senior Clerk in the second respondent Society, which is a credit society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act). The society had been classified in class IV of Appendix III to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (The Rules) though the increase in its working capital and outstandings justified a higher classification. The managing committee of the society passed resolution Ext. P. 1 on 30-5-1991, resolving to upgrade the society to class III and to pay salary accordingly to the members of its staff. This was duly intimated to the first respondent, Assistant Registrar. But he informed the society by his communication Ext. P. 2 dated 7-11-1991 that as per the extant orders of the Government, no reclassification of any society was permissible, and that it was not proper to pay the employees, the salary admissible for a society included in class III. The petitioner who is an employee of the society and who is affected by Ext. P. 2 has challenged it by filing the original petition.

(2.) O. P. No. 1436 of 1992 is by a Co-operative Bank. Its working capital and the outstandings entitled it to be included in Class II of Appendix III. But it had been included only in Class III. The managing committee passed resolution Ext. P. 3 on 25-2-1991 to upgrade the classification to Class II. However, the second respondent, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies informed the petitioner by his proceedings dated 1-11-1991 that the reclassification, and the payment of enhanced salary and grant of promotions to the employees consequent thereon without the approval of the Joint Registrar were irregular. Accordingly he directed the petitioner to cancel the reclassification, and the promotions, and to take steps to recover the excess amounts paid to the employees. Petitioner challenges this order which has been extracted in paragraph 3 of the original petition. (Ext. P. 4 produced as a copy of this order is really some other communication, which has nothing to do with this case).

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which, while admitting that it is for the managing committee of the society to decide on the classification, it is contended that the reclassification can be brought into effect only with the prior approval of the Registrar. That was why the communication dated 1-11-1991 was issued. Norms for classification have been laid down by various circulars of the Registrar. Since the reclassification involves revision of pay and increase in the number of staff, the Registrar has to be satisfied about the achievement of the norms by the society before giving approval for the reclassification. It is his duty to see that the reclassification does not affect the working of the society adversely.