SHANMUKHAN Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the Secretary of the Corporation of Cochin Employees Cooperative Society Ltd. No.331, Thoppumpady, Cochin. He was suspended from service on 14.10.1999. The disciplinary proceedings ended in his compulsory retirement on 14.4.2000, with effect from 14.10.1999. The petitioner submits, though he moved the President by filing representations repeatedly, claiming Subsistence Allowance, the same was not paid to him. After his compulsory retirement, he moved the Assistant Registrar and the Assistant Registrar, by Ext. P2 order dated 13.7.2000, directed the Society to pay the Subsistence Allowance due to him. The petitioner submitted Ext. P3 representation before the Assistant Registrar, pointing out that the direction in Ext. P2 was not obeyed. Thereafter, he moved the Joint Registrar by filing Ext. P4 representation. The said officer considered his grievance and issued Ext. P5 order dated 6.2.2001, directing to pay the subsistence allowance for the period the petitioner was out of service. In Ext. P5, the date of suspension was shown on 16.11.1999. The Society moved a Review Petition before the Joint Registrar. That was rejected by Ext. P6 and the Society was again directed to pay the Subsistence Allowance due to the petitioner from 14.10.1999 to 14.4.2000. The Society filed an appeal against Ext. P6 before the Government. That was allowed by Ext. P10. This Writ Petition is filed, challenging Ext. P10.

(2.) The Government upheld the contention of the Society that since the petitioner was awarded compulsory retirement from service retrospectively from the date of suspension, he is not eligible for Subsistence Allowance. The petitioner is deemed to be out of service from the date of suspension and therefore, he is not entitled to get any allowance for the period he was not in the service of the Society, according to the Government. The petitioner submits, the said finding of the Government is plainly perverse. Under R.198(6) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, he is entitled to get Subsistence Allowance. He has been repeatedly moving the President of the Society to pay it and thereafter, the statutory authorities have validly found on the entitlement of the petitioner and directed payment of it. The right to get Subsistence Allowance cannot be defeated by this subterfuge of retrospective compulsory retirement, it is submitted.

(3.) The Society has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is submitted that the petitioner never claimed Subsistence allowance while he was under suspension. Since only after the compulsory retirement, he raised the said claim, the Society took the stand that he is not eligible for any allowance. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner was the Secretary of the Society and he has misappropriated more than Rs.93,000/- and for this reason also, he is ineligible.