Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V. BALAKRISHNAN versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V. BALAKRISHNAN v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 10536 of 2006(D) [2006] RD-KL 1065 (11 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 10536 of 2006(D)

1. V.BALAKRISHNAN, VILAKKAMADATHI8L HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent

2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERALO,

4. THE SHORNUR CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE BANK

For Petitioner :SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR

For Respondent :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :11/10/2006

O R D E R

K. THANKAPPAN, J

W.P.(C). NO. 10536 OF 2006

Dated this the 11th day of October, 2006



JUDGMENT

The petitioner filed this writ petition to implement Ext. P1 and P2 and direct the respondent-bank to reinstate him with back wages from 01.08.1984 onwards. While the petitioner was working with the 4th respondent - bank he was dismissed from service which was challenged before the Joint Registrar and by Ext. P1, the Joint Registrar set aside the order. By Ext.P1 the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in the service. Against Ext.P1 an appeal was filed by the 4th respondent - bank. The appellate authority, the government had confirmed the order passed by the Joint Registrar as evidenced from Ext. P2. Even against Ext.P1 and P2 the bank had filed a writ petition before this court. This court dismissed the writ petition. In the light of the above facts and circumstances the petitioner now submits that he is entitled for the benefit granted to him by Ext.P1 and P2. This court heard the counsel for either sides. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that since by Ext. P1 it is ordered that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with effect W.P.(C). NO. 10536 OF 2006 2 from 01.08.1984, the bank requires the sanction from the Registrar of Co- Operative Societies for which bank has already taken steps. However, it could be seen that as per Ext.P1 and P2 the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service with all back wages from 01.08.1984. The stand now taken by the 4th respondent- bank that for giving the back wages and other benefits to the petitioner the sanction is necessary from the Registrar, is not the reason to allow the claim of the petitioner as per benefits granted by Ext. P1 and P2. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed by directing the 4th respondent to implement Ext.P1 and P2 and to grant all the benefits accrued to the petitioner by that orders and the consequential orders on this effect shall be passed within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.

RV


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.