ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR, U.P. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-28
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on May 01,2013

Assistant Registrar/Member Secretary, District Administration Committee Appellant
VERSUS
Deputy Registrar, U.P. Co -operative Societies Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By U.P. Act 12 of 1976, Section 122A was inserted in U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 with effect from 3rd October, 1975. By the said Section, the State Government was authorized to provide for creation of one or more services of such employees of such co-operative societies or class of co-operatives societies as the State Government may think fit, common to such Co-operative Societies and prescribe the method of recruitment, appointment, removal and other conditions of the service of such persons appointed to any such service. The said power, by Section 122A of the Act, was directed to be exercised by making Rules. The State Government made The Uttar Pradesh Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies Centralized Service Rules, 1976. The said Rules came into effect on 19th August, 1976. In terms of the provisions of the said Rules, 'employee' means a person in the whole-time service of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies and working on the posts included in the Centralized Service. Rule 20 of the said Rules provided that the existing employees of the societies, at the commencement of the Rules, shall be deemed to be provisionally absorbed in the Centralized Service. Rule 22 thereof provided that the employee of a society provisionally included in the Centralized Service may opt not to become a member of such Service. Therefore, whoever was an employee of a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society as on 19th August, 1976 became a provisional employee of the Centralized Service. There is no dispute that the respondent/writ petitioner was an employee of appellant Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society as on 19th August, 1976. In terms of the said Rules, the Centralized Service was to comprise of the posts of Secretaries of the Societies. It is not in dispute that the respondent/writ petitioner was the Secretary of appellant Society. In terms of the provisions of the said Rules, the District Committee constituted thereunder became the Appointing Authority of the members of the Centralized Service in the district and, also, acquired the power, amongst others, to exercise control and supervision over them in the district. That power included the power to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank. In terms of Rule 11 of the said Rules, the Regional Administrative Committee became the Appellate Authority to decide Appeals arising from orders directing dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of members of the Centralized Service in the district. Rule 13(v) and Rule 21 of the said Rules directed final absorption of provisional employees after their screening in accordance with the instructions to be issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. On 21st March, 1977, such instructions were issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. It appears to be the contention of the appellants that on 31st March, 1977, the District Administrative Committee, after considering the instructions, thus issued, published a list of employees, who came within the Centralized Service, but the same did not contain the name of the respondent/writ petitioner. The fact remains that it is not the contention of the appellants that in exercise of option granted to the respondent/writ petitioner, he opted not to become a member of the Centralized Service. In such event, it was obligatory on the part of the appellants to enquire from the District Administrative Committee as to why the name of the respondent/writ petitioner has not been included in the said list prepared on 31 March, 1977. Instead of doing that, without then having any authority, it passed the order of termination. However, it appears that the respondent/writ petitioner did not take any effective measure to challenge the termination dated 7 April, 1977 contemporaneously. He purported to make certain representations, but those were rejected. In the year 1995, a writ petition, registered as Writ Petition No. 34603 of 1995, was filed by the respondent/writ petitioner before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, That writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay, but, at the same time, Court permitted the respondent/writ petitioner to make a representation to the Authority concerned, with a direction upon the Authority concerned to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. Accordingly, a representation was made and the same was decided against the respondent/writ petitioner, but, while deciding the representation, it was only held out that the respondent/writ petitioner did not become a member of the Centralized Service as his name did not figure in the list of members of the Centralized Service prepared on 31 March, 1977 by the District Administrative Committee. This finding was challenged in a writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner in 2002 before this Court and the same was registered as Writ Petition No. 1570 of 2002 (S/B). By the judgment and order under Appeal, the said writ petition has been allowed and the order dated 7 April, 1977 has been quashed. For the reason already indicated above, i.e. the order dated 7th April, 1977 is not by the Appointing/Disciplinary Authority, there is hardly any scope of interference with the order under appeal to the extent the same quashed the order dated 7th April, 1977. That will not automatically bring the respondent/writ petitioner within finally absorbed members of the Centralized Service, inasmuch as, his name for final absorption was not considered at all. There was no prayer in the writ petition for consideration of his case for final absorption. As a result, it must be deemed that the respondent/writ petitioner remained a provisional member of the Centralized Service until he attained the age of superannuation. He, however, shall only be entitled to such benefits, which a provisional employee of the Service was made entitled to under the Rules. With the observations as above, the Appeal is disposed of.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.