2016 Supreme(AP) 559

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.
L. Ranga Rao – Appellant
Vs.
Girijan Co-operative Corporation Limited and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 59 of 2006
Decided On : 19-02-2016

Headnote:

A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 - Section 61(1)(c) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the show cause notice of the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and further direct the respondents to pay the terminal benefits earned leave encashment and gratuity together - Petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Junior Assistant - Respondent-Corporation and later promoted as Senior Assistant - He attained superannuation and consequently the respondents relieved the petitioner from service from the said date - Petitioner received a notice wherein it is alleged that while the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant at Arku Valley during certain deficits occurred in respect of the stocks dealt by the petitioner and he is required to pay a sum of the said notice the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation disputing the allegations and also stating that the allegations are vague and without any basis and that as per the proceedings of the 1st respondent adjustments were allowed by the corporation in respect of the very same deficits deficits were within the allowable margin - Petitioner also brought to the notice of the respondents that the Corporation does not have complete record and also stated that the action of the respondents in trying to recover the alleged deficits pertaining to the old period after his retirement is illegal and the said claim of the respondents is also time barred - Petitioner again submitted explanation and thereafter the respondent once again issued show cause notice was found to be inadmissible deficit - Allegedly caused by the petitioner during the years for which the petitioner once again submitted explanation stating that there is no basis for the claim - Since the respondents are trying to recover the said alleged deficit amounts mentioned in the show cause notice from the petitioners terminal benefits - Respondents filed counter stating that the writ petition does not lie against a show cause notice - It is also stated that even before retirement from service proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for recovery of huge deficits for the periods amounting to and that a notice was issued and a final notice asking the petitioner to appear before to get the defects rectified. Petitioner himself declared the deficits caused by him and submitted write ff proposals to a tune claiming admissible driage in terms of RCS approved norms and that considering the same about were written off and inadmissible deficits to a tune calculated at sale price/cost price whichever is high were arrived and the petitioner was issued with a notice and responding to the same the petitioner filed explanation - Held, Period of limitation for referring a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a society to the Registrar under sub-section (1) of Section 61 of the act shall be regulated by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 as if the dispute is a suit and the Registrar - nominee,heirs of legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society be referred to the Registrar within [six years] from the date on which the act or omission with reference to which the dispute arose had occurred - Petitioner is a retired employee, the present case falls under Rule - As per the said Rule the time allowed for referring the dispute is 6 years - But admittedly the same has also lapsed since dues pertain to petitioner which arose prior to the year - As such the claim is barred by limitation. Further, this Court by way of interim order directed the respondents to pay the petitioner, terminal benefits such as earned leave encashment and gratuity and the same was also made absolute. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that terminal benefits have already been paid - the impugned show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside - writ petition is allowed.