SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1932

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
M.A.Mathai S/o. Augusthy - Appellant
Vs.
The Elangulam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. - Respondent
WP(C) NO. 12130 OF 2022
Decided On : 12-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SHRI.BABY THOMAS SHRI.BIJU GEORGE,SMT.MARIAMMA JOSEPH SMT.ALICIA JOSE,SHRI.GEORGE T.J
For the Respondent: ADV.M.SASINDRAN, SHRI.P.GOPAL

Promotions granted without requisite qualifications are invalid, and reverting an employee without notice is unjust, but no remedy is available post-retirement.

Headnote:(A) Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 - Rule 185 - Promotion and qualifications - Employee reverted due to lack of qualifications for promoted posts - Court held that promotions without necessary exemptions are invalid, but excess salary need not be recovered - Principles of natural justice require notice before reversion, but not applicable post-retirement. (Paras 6, 7, 8)

(B) Natural Justice - Requirement of opportunity to be heard before adverse action - Abrupt reversion without notice deemed unjust, but no remedy available post-retirement. (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an employee of the bank, was reverted from Senior Clerk to Attender due to lack of qualifications after working in promoted posts. He sought benefits based on his promotions, which were denied by the Tribunal.

Findings of Court:
The court reaffirmed that promotions without requisite qualifications are invalid and that the employee cannot claim benefits post-reversion. The action taken was legal and valid.

Issues: The main issue was whether the promotions were valid without necessary qualification exemptions and the implications of reverting the employee without notice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the management failed to seek necessary qualifications for promotions, the employee is not entitled to benefits from those promotions post-retirement, affirming the principle that promotions must comply with statutory qualifications.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

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 1st respondent bank, who joined service on 01.09.1976 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 01.12.1990 and as Senior Clerk with effect from 01.12.1997. At the time of retirement, the petitioner was holding the charge of Branch Manager. Petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2008. Prior to his retirement, on 27.05.2008 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 1st 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 1st 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.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent bank wherein it is contended that the petitioner was not entitled for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk from the post of Attender in as much as the qualification prescribed for Junior Clerk is Degree with pass in Higher Diploma in Co-operation examination (HDC) or in Junior Diploma in Co- operation examination (JDC). The basic qualification to hold the post of Junior Clerk in the bank is pass in HDC examination or in JDC examination. The petitioner possesses only SSLC and he did not possess HDC or JDC qualification. There is no provision in the Kerala Co-operativ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top