- (1.) HEARD the learned counsels for the respective parties.
(2.) THE petitioner's case in brief is as follows: the respondent No. 1 is a registered Cooperative Society. The State government which stands as a guarantor for repayment of National Dairy development Board/indian Dairy Corporation, loans have a control to a great extent over the activities of the District Milk Unions in the State directly and through a State level apex Milk Co-operative Society known Cooperative Milk producers' Federation Ltd. The respondent No. 1 (The Kishan Co-operative milk Producers Union Ltd. , Nadia) is also affiliated to the State level West bengal apex body known as the West Bengal Cooperative Milk Producers federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Milk Federation ). The respondent no. 1 has its field of operation in the District of Nadia. The petitioner was appointed as the Managing Director of the respondent No. 1 under an order of the District Magistrate, Nadia and Chairman, the Kishan Co-operative Milk producers Union Ltd. on the basis of the recommendation of the said Milk federation and the subsequent approval of the Board of the respondent No. 1. Such appointment was with effect from 01. 02. 2000 in a certain pay scale with DA and other allowances on a contractual basis for five years. It was stated in the appointment-order that such appointment shall be governed by the Rules and Regulations of the Kishan Co-operative Milk Producers Union ltd. On 20. 08. 2001 an attempt was made on the life of the petitioner when the petitioner was returning to his residence from his work-place and office at Krishnanagar by a local train in the evening. The petitioner has alleged that the petitioner as a Managing Director, as aforesaid, took certain steps in his work-place for which certain unscrupulous persons with vested interest got annoyed and the petitioner was shot inside the railway compartment near birnagar Station and the petitioner sustained two gun shot injuries in his left hand. The petitioner has alleged that the said injury was of a very serious nature and he had to be admitted in the SSKM Hospital and the petitioner had to be operated upon on 23. 08. 2001, but, the bullet could not be removed. It appears from a perusal of the writ petition that the petitioner had to be successively admitted to different hospitals and ultimately a fresh operation was performed upon the petitioner on 06. 06. 2002 at Christian Medical College at Vellore. According to the petitioner the medical treatment did not end there and the petitioner was asked to visit the hospital for further check-up and/ or operation. The petitioner has alleged that the petitioner has become physically disabled because of radial nerve damage and several joints of the left hand have become stiff.
(3.) IT is the further case of the petitioner that the Board of the respondent no. 1 resolved on 04. 12. 2001 that the medical expenses of the petitioner and one Sri Sumit Saha, who was also injured during the incident on 20. 08. 2001, would be borne by the respondent No. 1 and special leave would be allowed to them till their recovery. The respondent No. 1 paid the salary to the petitioner for the period from 21. 08. 2001 upto August, 2002. According to the petitioner his medical expenses for the first four months were reimbursed but from january, 2002 onwards no such reimbursement was made. The petitioners' services were terminated and the petitioner received a memo dated 9th september, 2002 (annexure P I 1 of the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 2 informing the petitioner that in pursuance of the recommendation made by the Milk Federation it has been decided by the management of the respondent No. 1 to terminate the services of the petitioner as Managing director of the respondent No. 1 due to the petitioner's long absence and physical disability, impossibility of resumption to duties in near future and the consequential problems faced by the organization in day-to-day management of the business in absence of a regular Managing Director. It was indicated in the said memo that the said memo should be treated as a 30 days' notice of termination as per clause No. 18 (a) (ii) of the WBCS Rules, 1987 from the date of issuance of the said memo. In the said memo it was further indicated that an amount of Rs. 44,660. 64 has been paid in excess to the petitioner and the said amount is recoverable from the petitioner but the respondent No. 1 is waiving the said amount which is recoverable from the petitioner as a humanitarian gesture which should be treated as the last and final payment of financial assistance to the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated that by another communication dated 09. 09. 2002 another cheque for Rs. 23,122/- was sent to the petitioner towards salary for the period from 01. 09. 2002 to 09. 10. 2002 in connection with the notice of termination.;