DINA NATH Vs. THE KANGRA CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD.DHARAMSHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 12 -5 -1994 passed by Additional istrict Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby the appeal of the appellant -plaintiff was dismissed and the cross -objections of the respondents -defend ants were allowed to the extent that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under section 76 of the Himachal Pradesh Co -operative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act), and the decree of the trial Court was confirmed whereby the suit of the appellant -plaintiff was dismissed,

(2.) The brief facts are that the appellant -plaintiff was selected as Peon -cum -Chowkidar in the scale of Rs. 375 -600 by respondents -defendants 1 and 2 and was offered appointment as such vide letter dated 10 -10 -1983, in pursuance of which he submitted his joining report, character certificate and deposited the security amount of Rs 250 in the Branch Office, Gagret, where he was posted. On 19 -JO 1983, respondent -defendant No 3, the Branch Manager asked him to produce educational certificate. The appellant -plaintiff produced Certificate Grade III in Hindi, equivalent to middle standard, which he had acquired being Ex -serviceman, According to the appellant -plaintiff, he fulfilled the educational qualification and the condition of his ability to handle a gun. Thereafter the respondent -defendant No. 3 did not permit the appellant -plaintiff to join his duties The grievance of the appellant -plaintiff is that number of persons, who were originally impleaded as defendants No. 4 to 15 but later on their names were deleted vide order dated 17 -9 -1993, were allowed to work as Peon -cum -Chowkidar, though they were less qualified than the appellant -plaintiff. He had filed Civil Writ Petition No 224 of 1985 before this Court to agitate his grievance, in reply to which the then Registrar, Co -operative Societies filed his affidavit that action would be taken against the original -defendants No 4 to 15 In view of the affidavit of th? Registrar, Co -operative Societies, the appellant -plaintiff withdrew his writ petition. His allegations are that no action was taken to terminate the services of original defendants No. 4 to 15, instead they were regularized. In this background, the appellant -plaintiff tiled civil suit on 27 -12 -1988.

(3.) The respondents -defendants contested the suit and raised number of preliminary objections that the appellant plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit; it is barred by limitation; the court has no jurisdiction to try it; it is barred under section 76 of the Act and it is bad for non -joinder of the Registrar, Co -operative Societies. On merits, it was admitted that the appellant -plaintiff was offered a temporary post of Peon -cum -Chowkidar on 10 -10 -1983 and was posted in Branch Office, Gagret subject to fulfilment of conditions as specified in the appointment letter Since he. failed to produce the certificate for the minimum educational qualification, he was not allowed to join his duties. It is also admitted that enquiry was conducted by the Registrar, Co -operative Societies and on the basis of his report show cause notices were issued to original defendants No 4 to 15 as to why their services be not terminated but they filed civil suits which were ultimately decreed in their favour and having failed in the first appellate Court, the respondents -defendants have regularised their services. According to them, original defendants No. 4 to 13 were appointed earlier to the appellant -plaintiff under the old rules, as such, their case is not comparable with that of the appellant -plaintiff Original defendants 4 to 15 had also filed written statement opposing the suit and took almost similar stand. According to them, they were already working with respondents -defendants 1 and 2 and were entitled to be regularised and the educational qualification prescribed vide letter dated 26 -4 -1982 was not applicable in their case.