PANKAJ JAIN
Krishan Kant – Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Jain, J.
Petitioner seeks writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his claim for promotion as Deputy Manager w.e.f. 7th of July, 2017 i.e. the date from which his juniors stand promoted vide Annexure P-1.
2. As per the facts pleaded in the writ petition, petitioner is an employee of respondent No.1-Bank. He joined the services as Clerk on 31st of January, 1995. Petitioner claims that he was due for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager from the post of Assistant Manager yet he was ignored despite being at Seniority No.48 whereas private respondents who were at Seniority Nos.49 and 50 stand promoted. Petitioner represented to the respondent for assigning reason for ignoring him from consideration. The representation has been placed on record at Annexure P-6 which has not been decided as yet. Petitioner claims that respondent No.1 conveyed through communication dated 1st of September, 2017 that in ACR for the year 2016-17 he has been assessed as 'Average'. Petitioner claims that the remarks were never conveyed to him.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the settled law, ACR not communicated to an employee cannot be read to
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi
Anadi Mukta Sadguru v. V.R. Rudani
Dev Dutt v. Union of India 2008 (8) SCC 725
Gayatri De v. Mousumi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.
General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Sultanpur, U.P. v. Satrughan Nishad
Jasbir Singh v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division
Nayagarh Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. v. Narayan Rath
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology
Pritam Singh Gill v. State of Punjab
Ram Sahan Rai v. Sachiv Samanaya Prabandhak
S.S. Rana v. Registrar Cooperative Societies
Sabhajit Tewari v. Union of India
Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India
U.P. State Cooperative Land development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey
Zoroastrian Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. District Registrar, Coop. Societies (Urban)
The court determined that cooperative banks do not qualify as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, thus are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Writ jurisdiction does not extend to enforcing cooperative society bye laws, which lack the force of law and are treated as private contractual obligations.
The test laid down in Marappan's case continues to govern the maintainability of writ petitions against Co-operative Societies.
Suspension of an employee under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act must adhere to due process and jurisdictional authority, failing which it is deemed illegal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 77 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 govern the removal and reinstatement of employees based on cri....
Suspension of an employee under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act must follow due process, including issuing a charge-sheet and conducting a proper inquiry.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.