Sreekumar I.T.K. vs The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, The Kottanad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and The Secretary, The Kottanad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent-Society, who has served the Society from 19.06.1980 to 30.11.2012. The petitioner claims gratuity as per the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Rules framed thereunder. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the decisions reported in Nedupuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Rugmini, and Retnavalli Vs. Ambalapadu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., to advance his contention. It is evident that the petitioner had an unblemished service in the Society and that no proceedings for disciplinary action were taken against her during her tenure. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that there was an enquiry conducted by the Assistant Registrar (General) Mallappally and a report dated 27.11.2012 finds that there are certain irregularities in the affairs of the Society.

The irregularities as such has not been pointed out in the counter affidavit. Nor is it stated as to who was responsible, but for a bland statement that the Secretary of the 2nd respondent was also held responsible. No proceedings were taken against the petitioner before her retirement and respondents 2 and 3 contend that they have been orally directed by the 1st respondent, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, not to disburse the gratuity amount due to the petitioner.

In fact, the counter affidavit of the respondents 2 and 3 shows that earlier, the Society has taken a decision to disburse the gratuity on 13.4.2013 subject to permission from the 1st respondent, evidenced by Exhibit R2(a), which was rescinded on the basis of the oral instructions of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot issue such oral directions; nor is the Society obliged to follow such directions. Going by the cited precedents and in the circumstance of no proceedings having been taken against the petitioner prior to the petitioner having retired from service on 30.11.2012, necessarily the gratuity amounts due to the petitioner are to be paid. The respondents 2 and 3 shall take immediate steps to disburse the gratuity amount and the same shall be done, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is allowed. No costs.