B. MITRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while working as a Clerk in the 3rd respondent Bank, acquired an additional educational qualification of pass in Part I of the CAIIBE (Certified Associate of Indian Institute of Bankers Examination). The Government of Kerala had, as per Exhibit P1 G.O. (M.S). No. 153/88 dated 8.6.1983, revised the pay and allowances of employees working in the District Co-operative Banks. As per Clause 3(x) of the said Government Order, the employees, who had completed Part I and part II of the CAIIB examination were eligible for one and two increments respectively. These additional increments were allowed only once. In terms of the Government Order, the petitioner was granted an additional increment of Rs. 18/- with effect from 1.8.1988, thereby raising his pay from Rs. 448/- to Rs. 466/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that the benefit of the additional increment was not extended to him during his subsequent promotions to the post of Accountant and Manager. While so, by Exhibit P3, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies clarified that employees of District Co-operative Banks are eligible and entitled to get an additional increment and that the additional increment should not be treated as a normal increment and the same should be paid as special pay on which dearness allowance and other allowances are payable. It was also clarified that while revising the salary further, the special pay should not be taken into account. Despite Exhibit P3, the petitioner's grievance subsisted to the extent of Exhibit P3 being silent about the timescale to which the additional increment is to be allowed. The representations submitted by the petitioner in this regard resulted in Exhibit P5, by which the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that as per the clarification received from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the additional increment sanctioned on passing the CAIIB examination must be maintained as such and is to be paid as special pay without any corresponding increase on account of revision of pay. Aggrieved by the stand taken by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. By Exhibit P6, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies rejected the petitioner's representation by a single line order, stating that as per the existing rules, the petitioner's request cannot be considered. The petitioner successfully challenged Exhibit P6 before this Court and by Exhibit P7 judgment, the impugned Exhibit P6 order was quashed and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Bank and to render a decision afresh, after adverting to, and considering all relevant facts and factors. Accordingly, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies reconsidered the petitioner's representation and once again rejected the petitioner's claim as per Exhibit P8 order. The petitioner challenged Exhibit P8 in appeal before the Government. By Exhibit P10 communication, the Government informed the petitioner that his appeal is being rejected on the ground of delay. The writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P8 order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and P10 decision of the Government. The further prayer in the writ petition is for a declaration that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get an additional increment for completing Part I CAIIBE and that the increment is to be extended to him in all scales of pay in the service of the 3rd respondent bank.

(2.) In order to examine the legality of Exhibit P10, reference has to be made to Section 83 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short, 'the Act'), which deals with appeals to various authorities. The contextually relevant portion of Section 83 is extracted below:

(3.) The question as to whether, in the absence of an express provision, the Government is conferred with the authority to condone the delay in filing the appeal, was considered by this Court in Calicut City Service Co-operative Bank and another v. State of Kerala and others 2008 (3) KHC 917. Paragraph 7 of the judgment, wherein the question was answered, with reference to precedents, is extracted below: "7. Section 83 of the Act confers a right of appeal to other authorities. So much so, an appeal under Section 83(1) of the Act ought to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of the order or decision appealed against, going by sub-section (2) of Section 83. That provision does not contain any power to condone delay. As held by the Apex Court in Takuru v. Tanaji, 1985(3) SCC 590 and in L.S. Synthetics Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. And Another, 2004(11) SCC 456, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply only to proceedings in Court and not to appeals or applications before the bodies governed by statutes, as noticed by this Court in District Execution Officer v. Abel, 2006 (2) KLT 758. I may also notice in support of the said proposition, the decisions of this Court in Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board v. Government of Kerala, 2001 (1) KLT 608 and Prasad v. State of Kerala, 1999 (2) KLT 531, laying down in categoric terms that appellate authorities, including the Government, do not have the power to condone delay."