MATHAI Vs. ELANGULAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 judgment of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner was an employee of the 1 st respondent bank, who joined service on 1/9/1976 as attender. Petitioner, at the time of joining the service of 1st respondent bank, was having the qualification of SSLC. Later he was promoted as Junior Clerk with effect from 1/12/1990 and as Senior Clerk with effect from 1/12/1997. At the time of retirement, the petitioner was holding the charge of Branch Manager. Petitioner retired from service on 31/5/2008. Prior to his retirement, on 27/5/2008 the Administrator who was in charge of the committee reverted the petitioner stating that the promotions granted to the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk, Senior Clerk and the charge of Branch Manager were without getting exemption from qualifications from the Registrar. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the 1 st respondent has reverted him from the post of Senior Clerk all of a sudden, that too without giving sufficient time to the petitioner to raise his objections before the higher authorities. Petitioner submits that he is entitled to get his grades fixed in the post of Senior Clerk with arrears of salary and pensionary benefits. Though the petitioner approached various authorities, the grievance raised by the petitioner was not considered. While so the petitioner made a request before the joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, Kottayam, thereupon Ext.P1 order was issued holding that as the petitioner was not having requisite qualifications, the promotions granted to him was illegal, but further held that as the petitioner had actually worked in the clerical posts, the excess amount paid as salary need not be recovered and that the salary has to be refixed in the post of Attender, based on which pension has to be fixed. Aggrieved by the same petitioner has approached the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram filing Ext.P2 petition and the same was considered and the Co-operative Arbitration Court by Ext.P4 award decreed the suit directing to provide the entire retirement benefits with interest treating the petitioner as a Senior Clerk at the time of retirement. Aggrieved by the same the 1st respondent approached the Kerala Co- operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram filing Ext.P5 appeal, which was allowed as per Ext.P6 judgment setting aside Ext.P4 order passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The petitioner would contend that it was the duty of the 1 st respondent to verify whether the petitioner was qualified for promotions and if not, necessary exemptions from qualification had to be obtained from the Registrar before promotions were effected. In as much as the promotions have been effected and the petitioner had worked in the said posts, the refixation of pay and allowances in the post of Attender is absolutely arbitrary and unjust. Petitioner would further contend that it was the duty of the 1st respondent bank to obtain necessary relaxation from qualification before granting promotion to the petitioner and not having done so, the petitioner cannot be penalised.