Allahabad High Court
Sukhsagar Pandey And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And And Another on 15 November, 2019
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13840 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sukhsagar Pandey And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nikhil Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Agarawal,Satyam Singh
Alongwith
Writ- A No.15666 of 2019, Writ- A No.15410 of 2019, Writ- A No.15282 of 2019, Writ- A No.17541 of 2019, Writ- A No.16384 of 2019
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Satyam Singh learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and perused the record.
2. The above six writ petitions arise out of the same controversy and hence have been heard and are being decided together by this common judgment.
3. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
4. The petitioners herein seek mandamus commanding the respondent to pay their retiral benefits including arrears of salary by inclusion of the dearness allowance, alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the period of non-payment. The petitioners state that they were employees of U.P. Industrial Co-operative Association Limited (in short U.P.I.C.A.), an Apex level Co-operative Society limited established under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act' 1965 (in short Act' 1965), having primary societies comprising of its member. The object and purpose of U.P.I.C.A. is to develop, organize, promote and strengthen the industrial co-operation and to co-ordinate its activities with similar other co-operative organizations all over India. The State Government has deep and pervasive financial, functional and administrative control in the affairs of UPICA. The Managing Director of the UPICA is an officer of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and its functions are carried out in accordance with the policies of the State Government. The petitioners had retired on different dates on either attaining the age of superannuation or under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) floated by the respondent No.2 from time to time.
5. Even prior to retirement of the petitioners, their regular salary for several months was not paid. Similarly situated employees of UPICA filed number of writ petitions which were tagged in a bunch leading being Writ Petition No.6891 of 2003, seeking payment of arrears of salary which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 20.01.2004 wherein the State Government was directed to immediately release a sum of Rs.50 lacs for payment of current salaries of the employees of UPICA. It was further directed that the amount of Rs.50 lacs shall be treated as ad-hoc payment to UPICA for payment of current salary of its employees/petitioners herein. The remaining amount of arrears of salary was further directed to be disbursed within next three months. A Special Appeal No.369 of 2004 was filed challenging the said direction, which was disposed of on the agreement arrived between the parties that whatever amount remained unpaid to the employees would be paid by the appellant within a period of two months from the date of judgment and order dated 12.03.2019 of the special appellate court.
6. It is contended that the petitioners herein are similarly situated employees and are entitled for similar relief by this Court as had been granted in the aforesaid matter. Service details of each of the petitioners have been given in paragraphs Nos.'14' to '19' of the writ petition. It is further contended that UPICA is the State Industrial Co-operative Institution and is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India". The Association is under obligation to make payment of salary and retiral benefits to its employees (including the benefits of voluntary retirement scheme) within a time bound period and further to pay interest for wrong withholding of the legitimate payments of the petitioners without any justifiable reason. Apart from the above litigation, several other petitions have been filed with the similar reliefs in the year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2014 and thereafter. In all petitions, only stand of the respondent No.2 UPICA was that it was suffering financial crisis and that the State Government had not released sufficient funds for making payment of dues of its employees. The denial on the part of the respondents in payment of salary and retiral dues including pension to its employees is illegal and the cause shown by them over the period of years for the same cannot be said to be a justifiable reason.
7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, all the averments of the writ petition are more or less admitted with the additional statement that financial conditions of the UPICA is pitiable for the last several years and it is not in a position to make payment of even regular salary to its employees. It has somehow managed to pay salary of the employees of its sale centers and most of its employee could not be paid salary for several months. Repeated assertions have been made in several paragraphs of the counter affidavit that the UPICA has not sufficient source of income to make payment of salary and other retiral benefits to its employees at present and no fund is available with it. In order to meet the said demand, a request of interest free loan has been made from the State Government. Repeated communications sent to the State Government making the said demand i.e. for grant of financial aid went in vain. As a result if it, large number of its employees were retrenched and several have taken voluntary retirement. Even benefits of voluntary retirement could not be paid to its employees for the reason of shortage of funds. It is, however, stated that the legally admissible dues of the writ petitioners would be paid as soon as the funds are available with it without any further delay.
8. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court has been called upon to address the demand of the retired employees of UPICA (six writ petitioners herein) for payment of their arrears of salary and retiral dues as noted above. There is no dispute about the status of the petitioners nor it is averred that their demand is illegal or unjustified.
9. There is also no dispute that respondent No.2 is a State owned Apex society and comes within the meaning of the 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Further, indisputably, the State has deep and pervasive control over financial, functional and administrative affairs of the society namely UPICA. The Managing Director of the UPICA is an officer of the IAS cadre and is incharge of its affairs on behalf of the State Government.
10. Also, there cannot be a dispute that the pension and gratuity are valuable rights of an employee on the retirement and no longer a bounty to be disbursed by the government or any organization/employer. Culpable delay in dispensation of retiral benefits must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest. Reference to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala & others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair1, Y.K. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank & others2 and State of U.P. & others Vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh3.
11. This Court, therefore, is convinced that the petitioners are entitled for payment of arrears of their salary (for the period of working) and retiral benefits such as pension and gratuity and other payable dues/allowances under the relevant rules or the benefits of voluntary retirement scheme, as admissible to them, alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per anum on the unpaid amount from the date of their retirement. For the admission on the part of the respondents, the Court is also convinced of the fact that the employees are not at fault and the non-payment of their dues can be attributed only to the employer (respondent No.2).
12. However, before issuing appropriate directions in this regard, the Court feels it necessary to address the controversy in a broader perspective having noticed that the employees of UPICA are litigating for payment of their legitimate dues for a long time, at least for a period of 16 years as demonstrated to this Court.
13. Noticeable is the fact that 159 employees working in the head office and regional Office of UPICA filed writ petitions before this Court in the year 2003 seeking immediate disbursement of their legitimate dues towards salaries in the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions (leading writ petition No.6891 of 2003 decided on 20.01.2004). The General Manager, UPICA in the counter affidavit filed therein had stated that UPICA was suffering financial loss for the last ten years and was running only with the social objectives of helping weavers in the co-operative sectors. Though, it was incurring huge losses, but it was not shut down or wound up in order to pursue its main objective to help the weavers and weaker sections of the society. Several of its showroom had become unviable and had been closed as it had no fund. Most of the employees were not paid their salary for the period of more than three years. To mitigate its problem, revival project had been submitted by UPICA to the State Government but to no avail.
14. This Court having noticed the arguments of both the side therein had observed that non-payment of salary to the employees of the Government Company/Public Sector undertaking was nothing but denial of right to life as deprivation of financial income had resulted in denial of proper education to their children and the means of surviving, though they were regularly working and discharging their duties. It had then noticed that UPICA had already made a request to the State Government to disburse Rs.50 crores for payment of current salary to its employees. And that the constitutional and statutory liabilities of UPICA were to be discharged by the State Government in order to protect the fundamental rights of its employees guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A direction was, therefore, issued to the State Government to immediately disburse Rs.50 lacs as ad-hoc payment of current salary of the employees of UPICA.
15. It is further pertinent to note that it appears that despite such reliefs being granted by this Court to UPICA by issuing directions to the State Government to disburse money for payment of salaries of its employees, repeated writ petitions have been filed before this Court over the period of years by its employees (individually or in group) to seek release of their arrears of salary and retiral dues. In all such matters, same defence had been taken by the officers of UPICA that it was facing financial crunch and the State Government had not come to its rescue. The reason given for non-payment was identical in all matters.
16. Having noticed the above, it would be apt to have a look at the provisions pertaining to objective and purpose of establishment of the Apex level society like UPICA and the constitutional obligation of the State Government.
17. The establishment of Co-operative society under the supervision of the Ministry of Handloom and Textiles, Government of U.P., is an obligation on the State Government under Part IV, Directive principles of State policy under the Constitution of India.
18. The Directive principles of state policy laid down fundamental principles for the governance of the country and through those principles, the State is directed to ensure not only to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning and democratic control but also for the professional management of the co-operative societies. Article 43-B in part-IV, Directive principles of the State policy has been inserted by 9th Amendment of the Constitution of India, w.e.f. 15.02.2012. By inserting words "Co-operative Societies" in clause-(c) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution, formation of Co-operative Societies has been made a fundamental rights of the citizens of the country.
19. All these provisions have been added in order to give a kick to the co-operative movement in the country and to ensure that citizens of India are able to form societies with the comman object to promote welfare of the people at large. The Apex Court in the case of Charu Khurana Vs. Union of India4, has observed that the Directive principles have been regarded as 'Soul of the Constitution of India' and the principles of policy laid down therein are to be understood in the back drop that India is a Welfare State. It is, therefore, the duty of the State to promote justice, to provide equal opportunities to all citizens and to see that they are not deprived of by reasons of economic disparity. It is also the duty of the State to frame policies so that its citizen have the right to adequate means of livelihood. Article 38 in Part-IV of the Constitution under the Directive principles of State policies places a constitutional obligation upon the State to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of the national life. The State has to make an endeavour and strive, in particular, to minimize the inequalities in income and to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations. Article 37 makes the Directive principle of State policy fundamental in the governance of the country and provides that it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.
20. In Ram Lela Maidan Incident Vs Home Secretary, Union of India & others5 it has been observed that the Directive principles as contained in Part-IV of the Constitution of India declares the fundamental principles of governance whereas Part-III enumerates the fundamental rights. With the development of law, even certain matters covered under Part-IV relating to Directive principles have been uplifted to the status of fundamental rights, for instance, the right to education. Though, this right forms part of the Directive principle of the State policy but compulsory and primary education has been treated as part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the Courts, which consequently led to the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act' 2009.
21. In Charu Khurana4, the Apex Court referring to the decisions in Ramleela Maidan5 and Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others6 has observed that the Directive principles of State policy have been elevated by the interpretative process of the Apex Court to a status that the duty of the citizens has been extended to the collective duty of the State. It becomes the duty of the State to provide for opportunities so as to see that its citizen are not deprived of the means towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, to remove economic disparity in order to ensure that the nation constantly rises with the higher levels of endeavor and achievement of its citizens.
22. With the advent of Co-operative movement in India, even before introduction of Article 43-B in Part-IV and 19-1(c) in Part-III of the Constitution of India, the State was under obligation for promotion of co-operative societies. To promote the idea of a Welfare State, Co-operative societies for the artisans and weavers working in the Handloom and Textile sector of Small Scale Industries in the State of U.P. have been formed by the State Government. The idea was to give a common and secure platform to the artisans and weaver who were solely at the mercy of the wholesale dealers, to sell the products so that they may get direct return of their skills for their craft. The whole idea was to promote and organize the rich Handloom and Textile sector in the State of U.P., which was in the shape of Small scale industries and was scattered before advent of the Co-operative movement. The In-charge Secretary of the concerned Ministry had been given charge to ensure that the objectives of the State to ensure economic welfare of the weavers and artisans, a marginal sections of the society are achieved.
23. The U.P. Co-operative Societies Act' 1965 received the assent of the President on 24.03.1966 and published in the U.P. Gazette on 05.04.1966. It is a special enactment to consolidate and amend the law relating to co-operative societies in the State of U.P. The U.P. Industrial Co-operative Association Limited, Kanpur, i.e. the society-in-question in the present petition is an Apex society created under Section 2(a-4) of the Act' 1965. Section 2(j-1) and (j-2) provides 'federal structure' and 'federal tier' of the co-operative societies comprising of a group of Apex, Central and Primary Co-operative societies of similar nature and pursuing similar business and work. The provisions for establishment and management of a Co-operative society has been provided in various provisions of the Act' 1965 and the rules framed thereunder.
24. Chapter X provides the mode and manner of winding up and dissolution of the co-operative societies. Section 4 provides that a society which has its object for promotion of the economic interest of its members in accordance with co-operative principles or a society established with the object of facilitating the operations of such a society, may be registered under the Act' 1965. The explanation to Section 4 of the Act' 1965 explains the co-operative principles as under:-
"Explanation. - Co-operative principles shall include -
(a) advancement of economic interest of the members in accordance with public morals, decency and the relevant directive principles of State policy enunciated in the Constitution of India;
(b) regulation and restriction of profit motive;
(c) promotion of thrift, mutual aid and self-help;
(d) voluntary membership; and
(e) democratic constitution of the society"
25. Section 7(1) (d) provides that the Registrar has to satisfy himself, for the purpose of registration of the society and its bye-laws, that the propose society complies with the requirements of rules in regard to the existence of any conditions in general or for the class of societies to which the particular society belongs and further with the requirements of sound business and has reasonable chances of success.
26. Section 31-A relates to appointment of the Managing Director for an Apex society, who is a government servant not below the rank of Class-1 Officer, nominated by the State Government and that he is an officer of the State on deputation with the society and shall be paid salary from the fund of the society. The Managing Director is also an ex-officio member of the committee of management of the society and the Chief Executive Officer of the Apex society, subject to such control of the committee of management and the Chairman, as may be provided in the rules and bye-laws of the society. The duties and responsibilities of the Managing Director of the Apex society is indicated in sub-section (4) of Section 31-A which include responsibility for the general conduct, supervision and management of the day to day business and affairs of the society. Section 44 provides that it shall be duty of the State Government to encourage and promote the co-operative movement in the State and to take such steps in this regard as may be necessary and with the view to aid the growth of the co-operative societies in general or of any class of the Co-operative societies; subscribe directly to the share capital of the co-operative society with limited liability with its consent. The State Government is, however, entitled to dividend on its shares in any such co-operative society at the same rate as paid to other share holders of the society. Section 45 provides that an apex society which is provided with money by the State Government under Section 44 shall establish a fund to be called the "Principal State Partnership Fund, with such money and shall utilize the same for the purposes provided in sub-section (2) clauses (a) to (d) of Section 45 of the Act' 1965.
27. Audit, enquiry and inspection giving control and supervision to the Registrar or any other person appointed by the State Government has been given in the provisions as contained in Chapter VIII of the Act' 1965. Section 64 of the Act' 1965 provides for the power of the Registrar or any other person appointed by the State Government to audit or cause to be audited by a person authorized by him, accounts of every co-operative society. The audit shall include an examination of overdue debt, if any, the verification of cash balance and securities, and evaluation of the assets and liability of the society. For the purpose, he shall have access to all the books of accounts, documents papers etc. Section 64 (6) of the Act' 1965 provides that the audit report of account of every co-operative society has to be laid before the State legislature. Section 65 confers power on the Registrar to hold an enquiry into the Constitution, working and financial condition of a co-operative society. For the purposes of such an enquiry, the Registrar has powers;(i) to access to the books of accounts, documents, security etc. and; (ii) to summon any person who is in position or responsibility for custody of such document, or has knowledge of the affairs of the society to appear before him.
28. He can also require the officer of the society to call a general meeting at such time and place at the headquarter of the society or any branch thereof, to determine such matters as may be directed by him and in case of any refusal or failure of such officers to call such a meeting, he shall have power to call it himself. He can also call a meeting of the committee of management of the society to make enquiry as necessary in exercise of powers under Section 65 of the Act 1965. Section 66 confers power on the Registrar to inspect books, cash and other property of the society on his own motion, or on the application of a creditor of a co-operative society. In case of deficiency in the assets of society is found as a result of breach of trust or willful negligence or has been caused by misappropriation or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to such society, by an officer or an employee of the society, the Registrar on his own motion or on the application of the committee, Liquidator or any Creditor can make an enquiry into the conduct of such person and order for levy of surcharge against such person (officer or employee of the society). Section 69 cast an obligation on the Registrar by conferring power to order to remedy defects within the time specified in his order, if he is of the opinion that the society is not working on sound lines, as a result of audit or an enquiry or an inspection under Section 64, 65 & 66 of the Act' 1965; respectively.
29. Section 72 confers powers upon the Registrar to order directing for winding up of a society after an enquiry held under Section 65, or an inspection made under Section 66 of the Act' 1965, in a case where he forms an opinion that the co-operative society is no longer fulfilling its objects or complying with the requirement of clause-(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 7.
30. Having considered the object and purpose of establishment of a co-operative society under the Constitution of India, the mode and manner of its establishment and management, control and supervision of the State Government as provided under the Act' 1965, it is evident that though an Apex Co-operative Society has been conceived as an autonomous body but adequate checks and balances have been provided in the statute so as to see that it achieves the objectives of its establishment/creation. The provisions in this regard are codified under the Act' 1965 and the officers or the committee of management of the society, whosoever is Incharge, is under obligation to make an endeavor to manage it in such manner that the objectives and purposes of its establishment are achieved to the fullest. The Registrar, Co-operative Society has to make time-to-time enquiry and inspection to ensure proper and effective management of the society and that its objectives are achieved.
31. In the case of the Co-operative society-in-question, i.e. U.P. Industrial Co-operative Association Limited, the Managing Director an officer of the State Government (I.A.S), being in control of its financial and administrative functioning, is answerable. The concerned Secretary of the Ministry namely Handloom and Textile Ministry, Government of U.P., Lucknow has to ensure that the affairs of the Apex level society, established by the Government of U.P., are managed properly in order to fulfill the constitutional obligation of the State Government. The explanation offered by the Managing Director, U.P. Industrial Co-operative Association Limited, an Apex level society established by the State Government under the supervision and control of the ministry of Handloom and Textiles, in the counter affidavit filed herein is not satisfactory. It is difficult to comprehend that the Apex level society which has been established with the objectives of the welfare of weavers and small manufactures of the Small Scale Industries of Handloom and Textile sector is running in losses for more than two decades and is not in a position even to pay the salary and the retiral benefits of its employees. The statement in the counter affidavit to the present petition that the society somehow managed to pay salary of its only staff working in sale centers on account of acute financial crises, is not understandable. More so, when Hand-loom and Textile Industries in the State of U.P. is so rich and vibrant having good number of weavers engaged in the lucrative industries running in the districts like Varanasi and Mau.
32. The denial of salary and retiral dues to the employees of the Apex society on the explanation offered in the counter affidavit, thus, is unacceptable.
33. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that in the Writ Petition No. 6891 of 2003 decided on 20.1.2004, similar defence was taken for denial of the retiral dues and salary to the employees of UPICA. This Court while issuing direction to the State Government therein to release a sum of Rs. 50 lacs for payment of current salaries of the employees of UPICA had taken note of the letter dated 23.9.2003 sent by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. to the Director of Hand-loom and Textiles, U.P., giving financial approval of voluntary retirement to the employees of UPICA in the year 2003-2004. It was further noted that the said letter authorized and approved sanction of Rs. 11,51,42,744/- (Eleven crore fifty one lakhs forty two thousand seven hundred forty four rupees) with the condition that the said amount shall only be spent for the purpose for which the amount had been advanced, i.e. towards Voluntary Retirement Scheme and, thus, could only be disbursed to those employees who had opted for voluntary retirement and could not be used for payment of arrears and current salary.
34. This Court had further noticed that the petitioners therein and their family were on the verge of starvation, inasmuch as, they had not been paid a single penny towards salary for many years. The denial of salary to the employees of the State Corporation/Cooperative Society was nothing but denial of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
35. It is further pertinent to note that the petitioners herein also claimed that the benefits of voluntary retirement scheme, to some of them, had not been paid for a long time. It is not known as to how money sanctioned towards voluntary retirement scheme floated for the employees of the Society had been utilized. There is no details in this regard in the counter affidavit.
36. Be that as it may, this Court does not feel it necessary to divulge on the said issue. The fact of the matter is that the petitioners who are admittedly retired employees of UPICA (Government Apex Level Cooperative Society) have not been paid their salary for the period of working and also retiral benefits since after their retirement, for a long time.
37. It is not known nor it is disclosed in the counter affidavit as to what steps have been taken by the Managing Director or the State Government to overcome the financial crisis. No explanation has been offered by the Managing Director, UPICA that any such concrete effort has been made by him or any plan for revival of the society had been submitted to the State Government.
38. The audit report, if prepared over the period of years, whether had been laid before the State Legislature as per the requirement of Section 64 of the Act, 1965. The steps, if any, taken by the State Government or the Managing Director of UPICA to revive the Apex level Cooperative Society with the aid and assistance of the primary societies (its members) is not known. The averments in the counter affidavit appear to be lame excuse for denial of payment of legitimate admissible dues of the petitioners herein pending for a long time.
39. In the above facts and circumstances, at least this much is evident that the State Government has not been able to discharge its obligation in the proper management of the Apex level Cooperative Society, established by it for the upliftment of the marginal sections of the society, namely the weavers and small manufacturers engaged in the hand-loom and textile small scale sector in the State of U.P.
40. It is more than evident that the State Government in its effective control has not been able to discharge its constitutional and statutory liability to ensure the proper functioning and management of UPICA, the Apex level cooperative society. The denial of salary for the period of working and retiral dues to the employees of UPICA is nothing but denial of fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
41. The Apex court in the case of Kapila Hingorani vs. State of Bihar7 has considered similar situation in respect of the public sector corporation of the state of Bihar where salary was not paid to its employees for many years. It was held therein that the Government companies/public sector undertakings being 'State' are constitutionally liable to respect life and liberty of all persons in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They, therefore, must do so in cases of their own employees. Although in law, its liability towards the debtors of the Company may be confined to the shares held by it but having regard to the deep and pervasive control it exercises over the Government companies in the matter of enforcement of human rights and/or rights of the citizen of life and liberty, the State has an additional duty to see that the rights of employees of such corporation are not infringed. The Government of State of Bihar was held to be constitutionally obligated to protect life and liberty of its employees and an additional liability having regard to its right of extensive supervision over the affairs of the public sector undertakings/companies. It was held therein that failure on the part of the State in a case of such a nature must also be viewed from the angle that the authorities have failed and/or neglected to enforce the social welfare legislation enacted in this behalf e.g. Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act etc. Such welfare activities would cast a duty on the State being a welfare State and its statutory authorities to do all things which they are statutorily obligated to perform. The Supreme Court therein had issued several directions including the directions to dispose of all liquidation proceedings and issue orders to take all measures by appointing three members Committee to scrutinize the assets and liabilities of the companies and submit a report to the High Court. The High Court was further held entitled to issue requisite directions for disbursement of salaries of the employees of the said corporation.
42. The situation as has been brought on record in the present case is almost the same. It is evident that the State Government and the society established by it, namely UPICA has utterly failed to discharge its constitutional and statutory obligations. No plausible reason has been given by the Managing Director, UPICA for losses and there is no disclosure of the steps which may have been taken by him to remedy the situation. Any revival scheme, if submitted before the State Government, has not been placed before this Court.
43. It is also noteworthy that this Court in State of U.P. others Vs. Smt. Durgeshwari Sharma & others8. had categorically directed that in case the State Government failed to revive the project or give necessary direction to the concerned authority in that behalf, the provisions to winding up of the cooperative society under Section 72 of the Act, 1965 should spring into action. The Registrar, Cooperative Society was directed to initiate statutory enquiry and inspections required to be made under the Act and to arrive at a finding, as expeditiously as possible. There is no disclosure in the counter affidavit of the Managing Director for such actions, if any, taken by the State Government or the Registrar of the Cooperative Society in compliance of the said decision of this Court dated 20.1.2004.
44. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court has no option but to form an opinion that the denial of salary and retiral dues of the employees of the UPICA including benefits of voluntary retirement scheme on the part of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, whimsical and not based on sound reasons.
45. The denial of salary and retiral dues amounts to denial of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and as such, it is required that a direction is issued to the State Government to take necessary steps to remedy the situation, immediately. The petitioners cannot be asked to wait further for receipt of their legitimate dues. It is, therefore, directed that all the legitimate admissible dues of the petitioners herein shall be paid either by the Managing Director or by the State Government, as the case may be, by taking appropriate steps, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
46. In case of non-payment within the aforesaid period, it would be open for the petitioners to initiate appropriate proceedings for non-compliance of the above directions.
47. Further the concerned Secretary of the Ministry of Handloom & Textiles, Government of U.P., is directed to make appropriate proposal or revival scheme for revival of the Society namely UPICA and place the said proposal before the State Legislature for approval. The Managing Director of UPICA being in control of the affairs of UPICA, instead of placing repeated demand for funds before the State Government shall conceive a revival plan in consultation with the concerned Secretary of the Ministry concerned.
48. All in all, fruitful efforts shall be made by the Officers Incharge of the Society and the State Government jointly to revive the Society with the aid and assistance of its members of the primary societies so as to achieve the constitutional objective to encourage and promote cooperative movement in the State. The steps taken by the State Government and the Managing Director, Cooperative Society in this regard have to be submitted in a report before the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad within the period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
49. With the observations and directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of.
Order Date :- 15.11.2019 Himanshu