Back
1998 Supreme(All) 843
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. R. Singh, J.
RAM SARAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 22048 Of 1989
Decided On : 08/11/1998
K.S.MISHRA
The U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975, applies only to cooperative societies placed under the purview of the Institutional Service Board by the relevant notification, and societies not covered by the regulation are not subject to the disciplinary proceedings prescribed therein.
Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - U. P. SAHKART KARAMCHARI SEVA NIYAMAWALI - U. P. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES EMPLOYEES SERVICE REGULATION, 1975 - SECTION 128 OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - PUBLIC FUNCTION - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - ARBITRARINESS - REMEDY UNDER SECTION 128 OF THE ACT - EFFICACIOUS REMEDY - CIVIL SUIT - REPRESENTATION TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY - DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an Asstt. Accountant in Chakaundh Farmers Services (Co-operative) Society, Chakaundh, Banda, challenged the termination of his services by the society under rule 4 of the U. P. Sahkart Karamchari Seva Niyamawali, claiming that his services were governed by the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975, which required disciplinary proceedings before termination.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's services were not governed by the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975, as the society was not placed under the purview of the Institutional Service Board by the relevant notification. Therefore, the society was not a state or authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and the writ petition was not maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's services were governed by the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975? 2. Whether the society was a state or authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the writ petition was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975, applied only to cooperative societies placed under the purview of the Institutional Service Board by the relevant notification. 2. The society in question was not placed under the purview of the Institutional Service Board and therefore, the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975, did not apply to the petitioner's services. 3. The society was not a state or authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, subject to the observations and directions that the petitioner could either file a civil suit for appropriate relief or approach the Registrar under Section 128 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 for annulment of the resolution terminating his services. The Registrar was directed to dispose of any representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law.
S. R. SINGH, J.
( 1 ) DISPUTATION in the Instant petition centres round the order dated 16. 8. 1989 by which the petitioners appointment as Asstt. Accountant in Chakaundh Farmers Services (Co-operative)Society, Chakaundh, Banda, was terminated.
( 2 ) FACTUAL matrix bearing on the controversy involved in this petition is that the petitioner entered the service of the respondent-society as Asstt. Accountant on a salary pegged at Rs. 300 per month. The appointment letter dated 24. 12. 1985 envisaged that the service was liable to be terminated at any time without any notice. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated by means of the order dated 16. 8. 1989 with immediate effect. The termination of service purports to have been ordered under rule 4 of the U. P. Sahkart Karamchari Seva Niyamawali and the petitioner was paid a months advance salary pursuant to the resolution passed by the sanchalak Mandal of the society.
( 3 ) SRI K. S. Misra, appearing for the petitioner, canvassed, relying upon Regulation 85 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975, that the services of the petitioner were not liable to be terminated except after recourse to disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in the manner embodied in the said regulation. In opposition, Sri K. M. Sahal, standing counsel, mooted the maintainability of the petition stemming from the submission that the services of the petitioner were not governed by any statutory rules or regulations. The remedy if any, submitted the learned standing counsel, was to invoke the procedure of a suit.
( 4 ) IN Ram Singh u. Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. , Nehru Nagar Naidu, Distt. Meerut, (1997) 2 uplbec 1102, a Division Bench of this Court held the view that Co-operative Societies not coming within the purview of Regulation 2 (ix) of the U. P, Co-operative Societies Employees service Regulation, 1975, do not satisfy the test of being state or authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, no writ lay against such Co-operative societies. The service regulation on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, commends itself for application to Co-operative Societies falling within the purview of Regulation 2 (ix) which, for ready reference, is excerpted below.
"co-operative Society means a co-operative society placed under the purview of the Board by government Notification No. 336-C (xii)/c 3-26-71 dated March 4. 1972 as amended form time to time by notification Issued under Section 122 of the Act read with Rule 389 fa) of the Rules. "
( 5 ) THE Co-operative Society in which the petitioner was employed, had its area of operation in a part of district Banda and there is nothing on record to be eloquent of the fact that it has been placed under the purview of the Institutional Service Board by means of the notification referred to in Regulation 2 (ix) of the Regulations aforestated. In the above conspectus, the regulations referred to above, are not attracted for application to the petitioner and the society in the present case is neither state nor authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
( 6 ) SRI K. S. Misra. appearing for the petitioner then cited the decision in Shin Narain Shukla v. District Asstt. Registrar of the Cooperative Society U. P. . Banda the ratio decidendi of which was that the termination of the services of an Accountant of Sahkari Samiti without fallowing the procedure contained in Regulations 84-85 of the Regulations was illegal. In the said case, the question whether the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 were intended for application to the concerned society namely Badosa Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. , badosa, Distt. Banda was neither examined nor decided in its perspective and in view of conclusion that the society in the present case is not one, falling within the purview of the notification referred to in R
