Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Om Prakash Gautam S/O Shri Prabhu Lal Ji vs The Deputy Registrar on 21 August, 2023
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
[2023:RJ-JP:18439]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26737/2018
Ram Narain Nagar S/o Shri Raghu Nath Ji, Aged About 60 Years,
Retired As Manager (Vyavasthapak), Karjoda Gram Seva Sehkari
Samiti Ltd., Karjoda, Panchayat Samiti Itava, District Kota.
Resident Of Village And Post Ayana, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kota.
2. Ayani Gram Seva Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Ayani, Panchayat
Samiti Etava, District Kota, Through Its Authorised
Representative Manager.
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27187/2018
1. Om Prakash Gautam S/o Shri Prabhu Lal Ji, Aged About 63 Years, Retired As Manager (Vyavasthapak), Gram Seva Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Borkhera, District Kota. Resident Of Near Mangleshwar Mahadev Mandir, Prem Ji Ki Badi, Borkhera, District Kota.
2. Nathu Lal Sharma S/o Late Shri Nand Kishore Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, Retired As Manager (Vyavasthapak), Gram Seva Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Borkhera, District Kota. Resident Of Deoli Arab, Borkheda, District Kota.
3. Chet Ram Meena S/o Shri Meetha Lal Meena, Aged About 48 Years, Working As Manager (Vyavasthapak), Gram Seva Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Borkhera, District Kota. Resident Of House No.e-9, Gokul Colony, Borkhera, District Kota.
4. Jitendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shakunt Kumar Sharma, Aged About 43 Years, Working As Sahayak Assistant, Gram Seva Sehkari Samiti Ltd, Borkhera, District Kota. Resident Of Kalupura, Nayapura, Kota Rajasthan.
5. Sunil Kumar Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, Working As Sahayak (Assistant), Gram Seva Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Borkhera, District Kota. Resident Of (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:23:10 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18439] (2 of 6) [CW-26737/2018] Laxman Vihar-I, Kunhadi, Kota (Rajasthan).
6. Mahaveer Prasad Kushwaha S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Kushwaha, Aged About 42 Years, Working As Sahayak (Assistant), Gram Seva Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Borkhera, District Kota. Resident Of Masjid Gali, Borkhera, District Kota.
7. Brij Raj Vashnav S/o Shri Panna Das Vashnav, Aged About 48 Years, Working As Class Iv Employee, Gram Seva Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Borkhera, District Kota. Resident Of Near Farm, Mandi Para, Borkhera, District Kota.
8. Jagdish Prasad Kushwaha S/o Shri Ram Gopal Kushwaha, Aged About 42 Years, Working As Class Iv Employee, Gram Seva Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Borkhera, District Kota. Resident Of Mandi Para, Borkhera, District Kota.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kota
2. Borkheda Gram Seva Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Borkhera, District Kota, Through Its Authorised Representative Manager.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pradeep Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.S.Raghav, AAG with Mr.Ajay Rajawat, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 21/08/2023 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.26737/2018:-
1. This Court finds that the petitioner has made following prayers in the present writ petition.
Prayer:-
"A) By an appropriate writ order or direction quash and set aside the impugned order dated (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:23:10 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18439] (3 of 6) [CW-26737/2018] 26.08.2011 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent No.3 Dy.Registrar, Kota together with the impugned judgment and order dated 25.06.2015 (Annexure-11) read with judgment and order dated 24.08.2018 (Annexure-13) passed by the learned Rajasthan Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur. B) It may be held that Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kota (respondent No.3) had no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 125 of the Act of 2001.
C) The respondents may please be directed and ordered that no recovery be made from the retired petitioners out of the payment of salary made under the revised pay scales rules. The in-service petitioner be paid their monthly salary under the revised pay scales rules regularly.
D) Cost of litigation may also kindly be awarded to the humble petitioner.
E) Any other appropriate order or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner."
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.27187/2018:-
2. This Court finds that the petitioners have made following prayers in the present writ petition.
Prayer:-
"A) By an appropriate writ order or direction quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.08.2011 (Annexure-10) passed by the respondent No.3 Dy.
Registrar, Kota together with the impugned judgment and order dated 25.06.2015 (Annexure-
17) read with judgment and order dated (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:23:10 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18439] (4 of 6) [CW-26737/2018] 24.08.2018 (Annexure-21) passed by the learned Rajasthan Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur. B) It may be held that Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kota (respondent No.3) had no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 125 of the Act of 2001.
C) The respondents may please be directed and ordered that no recovery be made from the retired petitioners out of the payment of salary made under the revised pay scales rules. The in-service petitioner be paid their monthly salary under the revised pay scales rules regularly. D) Cost of litigation may also kindly be awarded to the humble petitioner.
E) Any other appropriate order or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner."
3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that the controversy raised in the present two writ petitions are identical to other bunch of writ petitions decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP No.26628/2018 (Badri Lal Sain Vs. The Deputy Registrar and another) and other connected writ petitions decided by common order dated 14.08.2019.
4. This Court finds that the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Badri Lal Sain Vs. The Deputy Registrar and Another (supra) has passed directions and the same is quoted hereunder:-
"However, without going into the question of law argued by learned counsel for petitioner, this court is inclined to interfere with the order dated 26 th August, 2011 to the limited extent that in the light of the fact that resolution dated 7th May, 2011 has (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:23:10 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18439] (5 of 6) [CW-26737/2018] always been acted upon for the petitioner by virtue of interim order passed by the Tribunal on 20th February, 2013, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions by directing the respondents to re-visit the order dated 26 th August, 2011 strictly in accordance with law. Such order is based upon the fact that petitioners have drawn all the benefits and have superannuated thereafter and any application of the Tribunal's order dated 25th June, 2015 upon the present petitioners who retired may be detrimental to their retiral benefits and future right of livelihood. Thus the respondents shall pass fresh orders strictly in accordance with law while keeping into consideration the judgments passed in Mahadev Singh (supra) and in Tej Singh Vs. Hanumangarh Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors., DB Civil Special Appeal No.52/2013, decided on 23 rd January, 2013 so as to decide as to whether interim order dated 26th August, 2011 would be implemented for the limited purpose of the petitioners alone who have superannuated and have already taken all the benefits. Such decision shall be taken by the respondents to re-visit the order dated 26 th August, 2011 qua the petitioners in the light of peculiar circumstances when the petitioners have already drawn the benefits arising out of resolution dated 7 th May, 2011 in pursuance of the interim order granted on 20th February, 2013 by the Tribunal. The decision shall be taken within a period of six months from today. It is made clear that until final decision is taken by the respondents, no recovery shall be made from the petitioners in pursuance of the Tribunal's order dated 20th February, 2013. It is needless to say that for the purpose of future implementation of the resolution dated 7th May, 2011 for the existing employees of the society, the petitioners shall be at (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:23:10 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18439] (6 of 6) [CW-26737/2018] liberty to take a fresh resolution strictly in accordance with law."
5. This Court asked learned counsel for the parties to inform this Court as whether the order passed by the Single Bench has been put to challenge and learned counsel for the parties to the best of their information submits that no appeal has been filed against such an order.
6. This Court finds that the impugned order dated 26.08.2011 passed in the case of petitioner Ram Narain Nagar and the impugned order dated 26.08.2011 passed in the case of petitioners-Om Prakash Gautam & Ors. are required to be interfered and are set aside.
7. The directions, which have been given in the case of Badri Lal Sain Vs. The Deputy Registrar and another (supra) will mutatis-mutandis apply in the present petitions as well.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petitions stand disposed of, in terms of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Badri Lal Sain Vs. The Deputy Registrar and another (supra).
9. This Court makes it clear that interim order passed by this Court, restraining the respondents to recover any amount from the petitioners will continue to be in operation till fresh orders are passed by the respondents.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J Monika/418-419 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:23:10 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)