Allahabad High Court
Shivanand Mishra And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 29 July, 2010
Author: Arun Tandon
Bench: Arun Tandon
Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44294 of 2010 Petitioner :- Shivanand Mishra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- R. S. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.,D. P. Singh Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Heard Sri R.S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5 and learned Standing Cousnel for the State-respondents.
Petitioners were initially appointed as daily wage employees on fixed pay in the employment of District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jaunpur. Petitioners filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20698 of 1988 claiming regularization. An order was passed by the Writ Court on 21st May, 1996 directing that since the petitioners have completed 240 days of continuous service, they may be regularized under the relevant service rules as per the wishes of the Bank itself reflected in its Resolution. The Bank constituted a selection committee for the purposes of regularising the services of the petitioners and in pursuance thereof an order was issued on 17th May, 2004 stating therein that the petitioners stands regularized with reference to the date of the meeting of the selection committee as noticed in the order. Clause-9 of the order specifically mentions that employees so regularized will not have any claim in the matter of fixation of salary, seniority and other service benefits for the past services rendered on ad hoc basis and all claims in that regard shall stand closed from the date of issuance of the order. This order of the Bank dated 17th May, 2004 has not been challenged before any authority and has become final between the parties. Despite the said order the Committee of Management of the Bank is stated to have passed a resolution on 9th December, 2004 providing that all service benefits be granted to the persons like the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment and approval from the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Bank is also stated to have been obtained.
It is stated that the petitioners in fact were granted such monetary benefits from the date of their initial appointment thereafter. However, w.e.f. January, 2008, salary of the petitioners has been reduced and the benefit earlier granted in respect of length of service rendered on ad hoc basis has been withdrawn. No order has been brought on record, which could disclose the reasons for such action being taken nor it is the case of the petitioner that they have been served with any such order. However, what has been stated is that such deduction has been made without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. This Court has serious doubts as to whether having regard to the terms and conditions of the order of regularization specifically clause-9 referred to above dated 17th May, 2004 could there be a subsequent order directing the monetary benefits to be determined after taking into account the services rendered from the date of initial appointment i.e. when the petitioners were only daily wage employees getting salary on fixed pay. Neither any scheme nor any Government order permitting such benefit have been brought on record.
In the opinion of the Court issue needs to be examined by the Registrar, Cooperative Society in view of the powers vested in him under Section 128 of the Cooperative Societies Act.
Let the Registrar call for the records from the Bank concerned and consider the grievance of the petitioners as well as to take decision in accordance with law, on issue of payment of monetary benefits to the petitioner from the date of their initial appointment within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. It goes without saying that if the Registrar comes to the conclusion that the decision to grant monetary benefits from the date of their initial appointment was illegal or unjustified, he shall further ensure that the loss caused to the Bank is recovered from the members of the Committee of Management who are alleged to pass such an order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the person concerned.
The present writ petition is disposed of subject to the observations made above.
(Arun Tandon, J.) Order Date :- 29.7.2010 Sushil/-