Bhanwar Singh, J. - (1.) Shiv Mangal Singh and Brij Nandan Mishra have, by filing this writ petition. Invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay their salary including arrears and further for another writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 23.7.1992, 4.8.1992 and 14.8.1992, by virtue of which, the petitioners were asked to join the Cane Societies. One more prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to compel the petitioners to opt for their absorption in the Cane Societies has been pressed Into service.
(2.) As recited in the petition, the petitioners were recruited in 'Vasuli Section' (Vasuli Anubhag) of opposite party No. 3, namely, Prabandh Nideshak, U. P. Sahkari Ganna Samlti Sangh. Whereas Shiv Mangal Singh was recruited as a Process Surveyor, the other petitioner. Brij Nandan Mishra was appointed as a Clerk. In December, 1991, the petitioners were denied their right to draw their salary and their representation dated 13.2.1992 to the Prabandh Nideshak, U. P. Sahkari Ganna Samiti Sangh did not yield any result. Thereafter, the District Cane Officer Evam Adhyaksha. Zila Seva Pradhikaran, Hardol recommended the petitioner's claim for payment of their salary including arrears and requested the Prabandh Nideshak of Ganna Samiti Sangh to clear their up-to-date dues on account of salary and other allowances. However. Inspite of several other letters having been sent by the petitioners, the opposite parties did not pay any heed to their request as a result of which, they continued to serve the Vasull Section of opposite party No. 3 without any remuneration. In the meantime, the opposite parties, in an arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal manner, sent a letter dated 17.7.1992 asking the petitioners to give their consent for merger of their services in the Cane Societies. The Prabandh Nideshak of Ganna Samiti Sangh sought approval of the Cane Commissioner Evam Adhyaksha. Rajkiya Ganna Pradhikaran regarding merger of the petitioner's services with that of Cane Societies. The petitioners were then asked their choice of particular Society in which they would have liked to be absorbed. The petitioners were also threatened that in case they would fall to send their option, their services were liable to be terminated. The reason on the basis of which the petitioners were asked to exercise their option was that the Vasuli Section was likely to be wound up shortly rendering the officials of that section to be jobless. It was on humanitarian ground that the petitioners were considered for being accommodated and absorbed in the District Cane Societies. However, the contention of the petitioners was that they were the employees of Ganna Samiti Sangh and if at all their service was to be merged, they were entitled to be absorbed in the service of the Sangh which is a centralised body. It has also been asserted by the petitioners that in case they were compelled to opt for their merger in District Cane Samitis, their future prospects would be jeopardised as they have to lose their seniority. Further. It has been stated that promotional prospects in District Cane Samitis are not encouraging as compared to that of Ganna Samiti Sangh. It was under these circumstances that the petitioners were not willing to opt for their services being merged with District Samitis and since they were employed as servants of the Ganna Samiti Sangh, they could not have been compelled to join the District Cane Samitis. However, when they were forced to exercise their option under the threats of termination of their services in case of default, they were obliged to file this writ petition reiterating their right to be absorbed in the service of Ganna Samiti Sangh by praying different kinds of writ as indicated earlier.
(3.) The opposite parly No. 3 filed his reply through short counter-affidavit of Sri K. N. Mathpal. Senior Assistant in the office of the U. P. Cooperative Cane Unions Federation Limiled, Lucknow. Sri Mathpal has asserted that the petitioners' contention to the effect that they were employees of the Federation was absolutely baseless..... He conceded that the petitioners were employed under the recovery scheme which in itself was a temporary scheme. However, the Scheme continued for a considerable period of time. After the expiry of the said Scheme, the opposite party No. 1, namely, the Cane Commissioner Evam Adhyaksha, Rajkiya Ganna Pradhikaran passed an order that the employees of the Scheme may be absorbed in other Cane Societies. The Cane Commissioner. In pursuance of a direction of the High Court issued in a writ petition filed by similarly situated employees of the recovery scheme, determined that the employees of the scheme were not the employees of the Ganna Samiti Sangh, instead they belonged to a section created under a temporary Scheme and since the scheme itself had expired, the employees of that Scheme instead of being rendered jobless should have been, on humanitarian ground, regularised in the District Cane Samitis. Vide order dated 12.8.1976, the Registrar. Cane Cooperative Societies had clarified that the recovery scheme shall not be under the supervision and control of Cane Unions Federation. As asserted by Mr. Mathpal, on this ground alone, the petition was liable to be dismissed.;