The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and Rules thereunder. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 proceedings of the 1st respondent by which, an application to enhance the salary of persons working as night watchmen in the service of the Bank has been rejected. Two reasons have been stated for rejecting the request of the petitioner. The first reason is that, the petitioner had not rectified the defects that were detected in an enquiry conducted under Section 65 of the Act. The second reason is that, the petitioner had enhanced the salary of the night watchmen, without getting permission from the concerned authorities.
2. According to Adv.Sri.P.N.Mohanan, who appears for the petitioner, the salary of the employees are fixed in Appendix III of the Act. The 1st respondent has no power or authority to fix the salary of the employees. For the above reason, it is contended that, the action of the 1st respondent is absolutely without the backing of law. It is also pointed out that the salary fixed in W.P.(C) No.8155 of 2014 2 Ext.P1 is `3,500/- per month. For the said salary no person is willing to work as a night watchman. The duty time of night watchmen is 12 hours and the responsibilities are onerous. It is for the said reason that the salary was enhanced by the petitioner. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.
3. A perusal of Ext.P1 shows that the same is dated 09.10.2009. As per Ext.P1, the salary of a night watchman has been fixed at `3,500/-. The said proceedings are issued by the Assistant Registrar. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been paying the said salary, all along. The only contention is that, in the present state of affairs, the salary is too meager and requires enhancement. Admittedly, the petitioner had not sought for any enhancement from the authorities. Therefore, it is clear that the enhancement granted by the petitioner was without the permission of the authorities. Though it is contended that the 1st respondent has no power to stipulate the salary as done in Ext.P1, the fact remains that the petitioner has not challenged Ext.P1 till date. The same has been in force from 2009 onwards. The resultant situation is that, the petitioner had got the posts sanctioned at the salary fixed in Ext.P1. It is the said salary that has been enhanced without authority. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned proceedings Ext.P7.
W.P.(C) No.8155 of 2014 3
4. Considering the changed circumstances, it is contended by the petitioner that a suitable revision of the salary is necessary to safeguard the interests of the petitioner. If so, the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a fresh application for such enhancement. If such an application is preferred, the 1st respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and shall pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible.
With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV