Vimal.V. Vimal Nivas, C.M. C 21, Cherthala vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General), Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General) and Cherthala Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Justice K. Surendra Mohan

The petitioner is the son of late P. Vamadevan who died in harness on 24-5-2011. He was working as the Chief Accountant of the third respondent bank at the time of his death. The petitioner, his mother and brother are the legal heirs of the deceased employee. Since the petitioner is eligible for employment assistance under Rule 188A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (the ''Rules'' for short), he submitted Ext.P1 application seeking such assistance. The complaint of the petitioner is that the third respondent bank has not considered the same for the reason that the petitioner''s father was under suspension at the time of his death and that an arbitration case was pending against him. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent. According to the counter affidavit, the petitioner''s father was facing serious charges of misconduct and was under suspension, at the time of his death. The disciplinary proceedings could not be continued because of his death. Since he had caused huge loss to the third respondent bank, the bank has filed an arbitration case against him for realisation of money, which is pending. On the death of his father the petitioner as well as his mother and brother have been impleaded as additional parties to the said arbitration case. For the above reasons, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to claim appointment under Rule 188A of the Rules.

Though Rule 188A stipulates various conditions that are required to be satisfied for claiming employment assistance by the dependents of a deceased employee, there is no provision in the said Rule disentitling the petitioner to claim such assistance for the reason that his father had been under suspension at the time of his death or that an arbitration case was pending against him for recovery of losses caused by him. In the absence of any specific grounds disentitling the petitioner it is not open to the third respondent to keep the petitioner''s application pending for the said reason. It has therefore to be held that the impugned action of the third respondent is without any justification. For the above reasons, this writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner''s application for employment assistance, evidenced herein by Ext.P1 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.