Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SARADAMANI T. versus MATTANCHERRY MAHAJENIK URBAN CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SARADAMANI T. v. MATTANCHERRY MAHAJENIK URBAN CO-OP - WP(C) No. 16249 of 2006(H) [2006] RD-KL 752 (13 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16249 of 2006(H)

1. SARADAMANI.T, (JUNIOR CLERK),
... Petitioner

2. SUJITH, (JUNIOR CLERK),

3. SANDHYA.P.K, (JUNIOR CLERK),

4. GOPAKUMAR, (JUNIOR CLERK),

5. ANIL KUMAR, (JUNIOR CLERK),

6. KRISHNA KUMAR (PEON),

7. BAIJUMON (PEON),

8. MANOHARAN (PEON),

Vs

1. MATTANCHERRY MAHAJENIK URBAN CO-OP.
... Respondent

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

For Petitioner :SRI.P.P.JACOB

For Respondent :SMT.P.A.ANITHA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :13/09/2006

O R D E R

W.P.(C). NO. 16249 OF 2006 1

K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE

W.P.(C). NO. 16249 OF 2006

Dated this the 13th day of September, 2006



JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of Ext.P3 judgment and the fact that petitioners were appointed in the regular vacancies, they are not given the benefits available to regular employee of the bank. The petitioners approached this court for the same purpose and this court observed that the matter has to be considered by the Managing Committee. Still the petitioners are not given the benefits in par with the other regular employees of the bank. The counsel appearing for the respondent bank now submits that the bank is being controlled by the Reserve Bank of India and on the regulations being issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Without getting proper orders from the Reserve Bank of India, the bank is not in a position to allow the claim of the petitioners. Admittedly the petitioners are appointed in the regular vacancies and if so they are entitled for the benefit in par with the other employees. It is contended before this court that in order to get benefits the respondent-bank should have taken immediate steps to get the sanction of the Reserve Bank. W.P.(C). NO. 16249 OF 2006 2 However, it is declared that the petitioners are entitled for the benefits claimed. Hence the bank is directed to take immediate steps for granting the benefits to the petitioners and this shall be done within three months from the receipt of this judgment and shall allow the benefits to the petitioners at the earliest. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.

RV/ W.P.(C). NO. 16249 OF 2006 3


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.