- (1.) SINCE the issues involved in both these cases are identical, they are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the Respondent -C.C.L. and Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 7 in both the writ applications. The prayer of the petitioners in both these writ applications, inter alia, is for a direction to the Respondents, mainly the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8, restraining them from deducting the amount of Rs. 2,000/ - per month from the wages of the petitioners towards the realization of the loan taken by them from the Respondent No. 5 in the year 1997 and also for a direction to the Respondents, namely, the C.C.L. to refund the excess amount, deducted from the petitioner's wages.
(3.) THE facts of the petitioners' case in brief are that the petitioners being employees of the Saunda -D Colliery of the Central Coalfields Ltd., had formed a Co -operative Society, known as the Saunda -D Karmachari Co -operative Society Ltd. The Project Officer of the Colliery was the ex - officio Chairman of the Credit Cooperative Society. The petitioners, except the petitioner No. 19, Sawami Nath Prasad [in W.P. (S) No. 2794 of 2008], had applied for loan individually for different amounts and the same was paid to them by the Bhurkunda Branch of the Hazaribagh Central Co -operative Bank Ltd. (Respondent No. 7) on the recommendations of the Society as well as of the Management of the C.C.L. Such loan was obtained by the petitioners in the year 1994 to 2000. Towards repayment of the loan amount, taken by the petitioners individually on the request of the Bank, a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - per month began to be deducted from the salary of each of the petitioners. Such monthly deductions were expected to be deposited in the individual loan account of the petitioners with the Bank. The claim of the petitioners is that by way of deductions from their monthly wages, they had repaid the entire loan amount taken by them individually, together with interest, and to the best of their knowledge and assessment, they had repaid the entire loan amount to the Bank through their employer. The petitioner No. 19 had not taken any loan from the Society. Rather he being simply a member of the Society, had become witness for one of the members of the Society, who had taken loan but the Secretary of the Society had wrongly entered his name as a loanee. It is further contended that no further dues was outstanding against the petitioners in respect of the loan, which they had obtained. This has been confirmed even by the Respondent Bank which had issued No Dues Certificates duly authenticated by the Secretary of the Co -operative Society to the petitioners. The petitioners were also issued No Dues Certificate by the Society.;