- (1.) THE appellant-Bank aggrieved by the judgment dated 317/2007 and the order dated 5/5/2009 has preferred this appeal contending that the learned Judge has fallen in error in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioners extending them consequential benefits of absorption in the appellant-Bank w.e.f. 9/3/1992.
(2.) SRI P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- Bank contends that the respondent-writ petitioners were not entitled to any such benefits, but on instructions at the time of the hearing of this appeal, he submits that in the event this Court arrives at a conclusion that the respondent-writ petitioners were entitled to any notional benefit then the same could be granted only to the extent of the payment of gratuity. Sri Yogesh Agrawal has been heard on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioners who contends that the learned Single Judge has taken into account the entire gamut of facts which indicate that the appellant-Bank compelled the respondent-writ petitioners to contest a litigation and the delay caused by the Bank in ultimately absorbing the respondent-writ petitioners was taken into account for granting relief to them. In such a situation, it is urged that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The factual backdrop of the case is that the respondent-writ petitioners were initially appointed and were working as Class-Ill employees/Secretaries in Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies. They were confirmed employees. Certain Class-Ill posts were available in the appellant-Bank and a circular came to be issued by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies that some of these posts in accordance with the said directives be filled up by way of deputation of employees of the Cooperative Societies. Accordingly, the respondent-writ petitioners were taken on deputation in the appellant-Bank.
(3.) THE Registrar, Cooperative Societies issued an order on 9.3.1992 in accordance with which the respondent-writ petitioners claimed that they were entitled for absorption. A writ petition was filed being Writ Petition No. 3324 of 1992 in which an order was passed on 15.9.1992 calling upon the Bank to consider such claims and pass appropriate orders. Consequent to the said directions, the appellant-Bank passed a resolution on 24.9.1992 that upon the expiry of the period of deputation, the respondent-writ petitioners would stand relieved. In essence, the respondent-writ petitioners were refused absorption. The said resolution of the appellant-Bank was also assailed in the same writ petition but it was dismissed on the ground of existence of alternative remedy under Section 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act.;