The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement of the workmen to revised pay scales and other benefits was determined based on the terms of the letter dated 18.6.1994, and they were not entitled to revised pay scales at par with the employees of the federation.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, in order to maintain clarity, facts of each petition have been dealt with separately. CWP No. 342/2008-B Petitioners were serving with the Central Cooperative Consumers Store, Shimla registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. Respondent No. 4 requested respondent No. 3 to take up the services of petitioners for procurement and distribution of control articles vide letter dated 10.6.1994. Thereafter, respondent No. 3, agreed vide letter dated 18.6.1994 to utilize 12 shops only for management purpose alongwith 18 workers (10 salesmen and 8 helpers). Condition No. 4 of letter dated 18.6.1994 reads thus:

4. The workers employed in the running of these 12 shops will remain on your roll and Himfed will make payment of their salaries through you at the present pay scale being drawn by each worker.

2. Petitioners preferred petition u/s 72 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for brevity sake) before respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 assigned the matter for adjudication to the Deputy Registrar (Administration), Cooperative Societies. He vide office order 26.7.2003 held that there was no clause in the letter by virtue of which the financial benefits to the petitioners could be frozen. In other words, he has held that the petitioners were entitled to revised pay-scale without arrears of revised pay scales. Respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the Additional Secretary Cooperation against the order dated 26.7.2003. He has allowed the payment of arrears and allowances to the petitioners in their existing running pay scale from 25.9.1998. The plea of respondent No. 3 that the arrears of pay be restricted to three years was rejected vide order dated 3.12.2005. Respondent No. 3 challenged order dated 3.12.2005 in this Court by way of CWP No. 272/2006. The same was decided on 21.6.2007 and the matter was remanded back to the Additional Secretary (Cooperation) for adjudication. Joint Secretary (Cooperation) decided the appeal on 3.12.2007. He held that the emoluments of pay which were admissible to the petitioners under the then pay scales could not be withheld. According to him, dearness allowance and other consequential benefits which the petitioners were already getting on the date of agreement would continue to be paid. However, according to him, they were not liable to pay future dearness allowance etc. at par with the employees of the federation. The prayer of the petitioners to get revised pay scale was rejected. In these circumstances, order passed by the Deputy Registrar (Administration), Cooperative Societies was modified. According to the petitioners they are entitled to regular pay scale at par with the employees of respondent No. 3-federation with arrears of consequential benefits like arrears of dearness allowance and other benefits etc.

3. Stand of the respondent-federation is that there was no master - servant relationship between the petitioners and the federation. It is further averred that the petitioners are only entitled to the existing pay scale as per agreement dated 18.6.1994.

CWP No. 1001/2008

4. By medium of this petition, the petitioner-federation has also challenged order dated 3.12.2007 passed by the joint Secretary (Cooperation). According to the averments contained in the petition, the workmen were only entitled to the rates as per agreement dated 18.6.1994: According to the petitioner-federation, the workmen are not entitled to annual increments.

5. Respondent-State has filed the reply to the same alongwith respondent No. 7. Petitioner-federation has specifically assailed Annexure A-1 dated 26.7.2003 and Annexure A-2 dated 3.12.2007. Case of the respondents-workmen (hereinafter referred to as 'workmen' for convenience sake) is that they are entitled to