JUDGMENT

The petitioner, while working as Internal Auditor of the 2nd respondent – Bank, retired from its services, on attaining the age of superannuation. He alleges that, in spite of this, he has not been paid his eligible Gratuity and other retiral benefits. He, however, concedes that there is an enquiry against the Bank, initiated by the Statutory Authority under Section 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('KCS Act', for short), but that the same has now been concluded. He contends that, therefore, there is no impediment for the Bank in disbursing his eligible retiral benefits, particularly because the 4th respondent – Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), has already remitted the Gratuity amount to the Bank account.

2. The afore submissions of Sri.Arjun Raghavan – learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by Sri.P.U.Shailajan – learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, saying that, contrary to his assertions, the earlier enquiry under Section 68 of the 'KCS Act' has been set aside by this Court and a new enquiry is underway. He submitted that, unless an appropriate report is settled by the competent Authority under Section 68(2) of the 'KCS Act', the claim of the petitioner cannot be acceded to.

3. However, to a pointed question from this Court, Sri.P.U.Shailajan conceded that the amount received from the LIC against the account of the petitioner is still with his client, but submitted that this is also liable to be adjusted against any liability which may be found against him. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. Sri.T.V.Ajayakumar - learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, confirmed that his client has remitted the amount eligible to the petitioner towards gratuity, namely Rs.10,14,237/-, into the account of the Bank; and thus prayed that no further orders be issued against his client.

5. The learned Government Pleader –

Smt.Parvathy K., submitted that the controversy projected in this case is between the parties and that the official respondents have no role to play. She, however, affirmed that an enquiry into the affairs of the Bank under the provisions of Section 68 of the 'KCS Act' is still going on. 6. When I consider the afore submissions, it is indubitable that, whatever be the allegations of the Bank, prima facie, it is doubtful whether they can hold on to the amount of Gratuity, which has been paid by the 4th respondent – LIC, into the credit of the petitioner. As regards the other amounts, certainly, they may be justified in saying that they have to await the enquiry under Section 68 of the 'KCS Act'.

In the afore circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

(a) The competent Authority of the 2nd respondent will immediately consider if they can hold on to the amount of Gratuity paid by the LIC, against the anticipated liability of the petitioner; and this shall be done after hearing him, thus leading to an appropriate order thereafter, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(b) As far as the Provident Fund and other retiral benefits of the petitioner are concerned, I am certainly of the view that the Bank will be justified in awaiting the final order in the enquiry under Section 68 of the 'KCS Act' being conducted by the competent Authority; but if this is not completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment, the petitioner will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; at that time, his entitlement can be considered, based on the Statutory Scheme.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

akv

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2139/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C.R.P/1849/17 DATED 31.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED

09.01.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATI0N SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BE