Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Pradeep Nandrajog, Pushpendra Singh Bhati, JJ.
Chittorgarh Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 510 of 2005
Decided On : 01-10-2018
EMPLOYMENT - EMPLOYEE STATUS - LOAN SUPERVISORS - CADRE AUTHORITY - CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK - RAJASTHAN SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 1958 - SECTION 2(5) - RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1965 - SECTION 4(1) - RAJASTHAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES, 1966 - RULE 41 - CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK RULES, 1969 - RULE 41 - AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES SERVICE RULES, 1969 - CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF THE MANAGERS/ASSISTANT MANAGERS OF THE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES, 1995 - INTERPRETATION - LOAN SUPERVISORS WORKING WITH LAMPS TRANSFERRED TO CADRE STRENGTH OF LOAN SUPERVISORS OF BANK - PLACED IN SENIORITY LIST OF LOAN SUPERVISORS OF BANK - DECLARED AS EMPLOYEES OF BANK - ENTITLED TO ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Loan Supervisor working with LAMPS, was transferred to the cadre strength of Loan Supervisors of the appellant Bank and placed in the seniority list of Loan Supervisors of the Bank. He sought a declaration that he was an employee of the Bank and entitled to all consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the respondent was an employee of the Bank based on the following findings: * The respondent was transferred from one place to another by the Bank. * The appointment order and dismissal order of the respondent were issued by the Bank. * The power of imposing punishment vested with the Bank. * The respondent was under the control of the Bank in the context of the scheme of Rule and various orders.
Issues: Whether the respondent was an employee of the Bank and entitled to all consequential benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the following legal principles in reaching its decision: * The definition of "employee" under Section 2(5) of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 includes a person wholly or principally employed in, or in connection with any establishment. * The Cadre Authority Society, which recruited the respondent, was not a lending institution and did not come under the first limb of Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. * Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966 empowers the Registrar to regulate the service conditions of paid Secretaries and to prescribe qualifications. * The Central Cooperative Bank Rules, 1969 prescribe the amounts collected from PACS to pay their salaries.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Bank and directed the Bank to grant all consequential benefits to the respondent as ordered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
1. The issue that arises for consideration in the present special appeal is whether the respondent No.3/writ petitioner-Suresh Rawal is an employee of the appellant-Chittorgarh Central Cooperative Bank Limited or not.
2. Briefly put, the facts indispensable for the present adjudication, are that the respondent No.3/writ petitioner was working in the Large Agricultural Multipurpose Cooperative Society (LAMPS), upon being appointed by the Rajasthan Tribal Area Development Cooperative Federation Limited, Udaipur on the post of Accountant on 17.03.1977.
3. The respondent No.3/writ petitioner was thereafter appointed as Manager by the Rajasthan Jan Jatiya Keshetriya Vikas Sahakari Sangh Limited (RAJAS), Udaipur with effect from 06.01.1978, and was thereafter transferred to Kulmipura LAMPS, District Chittorgarh by RAJAS. The respondent No.3/writ petitioner was again transferred by RAJAS from Kulmipura LAMPS to the Office of Assistant Regional Manager, RAJAS, Pratapgarh on 05.03.1982. On 12.10.1982, the RAJAS has again transferred the respondent No.3/writ petitioner from Pratapgarh to Bhukhiya LAMPS, District Banswara. Thereafter, the respondent No.3/writ petitioner was transferred from Bhukhiya LAMPS, District Chittorgarh to Dalot LAMPS, District Chittorgarh on 27.08.1983. The respondent No.3/writ petitioner was again transferred by the RAJAS from Dalot LAMPS to Deogarh LAMPS.
4. It is worthwhile to mention that the Cadre Authority vide its order dated 03.04.1984 has treated the respondent No.3/writ petitioner and other similarly situated persons as Loan Supervisors and were to discharge the duties with the appellant/Bank.
5. Learned Single Judge, in the impugned order passed in the writ petition filed by respondent No.3, held that the controversy involved in the writ petition is covered by a judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Sharad Joshi Vs. Rajasthan Tribal Area Development Cooperative Federation Limited, Udaipur (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6649/1991 decided on 12.09.2005), whereby the writ petition was allowed, while declaring the petitioner/Sharad Joshi therein to be an employee of the Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Chittorgarh (the present appellant) in pursuance of an agreement dated 10.06.1987, and accordingly, petitioner/Sharad Joshi was held entitled for all consequential benefits flowing as a consequence of such declaration.
6. In the aforesaid judgment rendered in Sharad Joshi's case, it has also been mentioned that by order dated 03.04.1984, the Loan Supervisors working with 44 LAMPS were taken on the cadre strength of the Loan Supervisors of the Bank concerned. They were also ordered to be placed in the seniority list of the Loan Supervisors of the Bank concerned from the date of their appointment as Manager with the LAMPS. As a consequence of such an order, petitioner/Sharad Joshi therein and other similarly situated persons, including the present respondent No.3/writ petitioner-Suresh Rawal, became the employees of the Central Cooperative Bank Limited and were also ordered to be placed in the seniority list of the Loan Supervisors of the Bank concerned from the date of their appointment as Manager with the LAMPS.
7. Since the controversy involved in the case of the present respondent No.3/writ petitioner-Suresh Rawal is akin to the one involved in Sharad Joshi's case, therefore, the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.3/writ petitioner-Suresh Rawal, in the same terms, while granting him the same relief’s, as were granted in Sharad Joshi's case.
8. The respondent No.3/writ petitioner and other similarly situated persons, therefore, are claiming to have become the employees of the Central Cooperative Bank Limited, the appellant herein, as they were also placed in the seniority list of the Loan Supervisors of the Bank.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/Bank has submitted that the respondent No.3/writ petitioner had not claimed the relief of bei
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
