Purshottam Singh v. State of U. P — 1987 DIGILAW 207 (ALL)

JUDGMENT B.D. Agrawal, J. - U.P. Co-operative Union Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the`Union") is an apex society, Purshottam Singh petitioner no.l was a Co-operative Supervisor under the employment of the Union. Under the circular dated October 9, 1967 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, the services of Co-operative Supervisors were transferred to the Zila Sahakari Bank Limited. By order dated August 5, 1970 issued by the Adhyaksha, Union the petitioner among others was placed under the Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd. Mirzapur (for short" "Zila Bank") with effect from July 1, 1969. Dadra Hinauta Kshetfiya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (petitioner no. 2) is a primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society at Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as the "Samiti"). On December 2, 1970 the Board of Directors Samiti resolved to avail the services of the petitioner no. 1 on deputation as Secretary and a request was made to the Zila Bank accordingly for the petitioner to be relieved. With effect from December 31, 1970, the petitioner was appointed Secretary, Samiti. In the exercise of powers under Section 123 (1) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (referred to as the `Act' hereinafter) the State Government issued a notification dated February 13, 1976 where under the Union was recognised as Co-operative Federal Authority for the Co-operative Supervisors and Kamdars appointed for supervision of the Co-operative Societies within its purview. The Co-operative Federal Authority thus recognised and framed the Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Business Regulations). In view of paragraph 4(2)(a) of the Business Regulations, the petitioner no. 1 exercised on June 30, 1976 of coining back under the control of the Co-operative Federal Authority. The Committee of Management, Federal Authority rejected this option of the petitioner no. 1 on November 24, 1976 by a resolution which was communicated to the petitioner on January 3, 1977. Following this the Administrator, Zila Bank terminated the services of the petitioner No. 1 by order-dated February 19, 1977 giving on& months, notice. Under another order made on the same day, the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies brought to end the deputation of the petitioner with the Samiti in capacity as the Secretary and directed that he be relieved. With effect from 6th April, 1977 another person was appointed as the Secretary, Samiti in place of the petitioner. Under another order made on the same day, the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies brought to end the deputation of the petitioner with the Samiti in capacity as the Secretary and directed that he be relieved. With effect from 6th April, 1977 another person was appointed as the Secretary, Samiti in place of the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 5th of May, 1977. 2. Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the order made on 19th February, 1977 terminating the services of the petitioner No. 1 as the Secretary, Samiti and the order dated April 6, 1977 appointing Sri R. S. Shukla in his place are without jurisdiction. In this respect the submission made is that keeping in view the provisions contained in the U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Services Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Centralised Service Rules') framed under Section 122-A read with Section 32 of the Act the petitioner No 1 is to be deemed as absorbed provisionally in the Central Service and there could be no discharge made except upon screening as contemplated under Rules 20/21 of the Centralised Services Rules, upon careful consideration we find ourselves unable to accede to this submission. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners proceeds on assumption that the services of the petitioner No. 1 were not on deputation with the samiti in capacity as Secretary and it is argued, the petitioner No. 1 had resigned from the Zila Bank. This has been refuted categorically in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2. We do not find acceptable material apart from bald allegations made by the petitioner No. 1 that he had not been placed on deputation as Secretary with the Samiti or that there was a resignation by him from the Zila Bank. Neither the alleged resignation letter nor a copy there of or an affidavit from some one of the Zila Bank on the basis of the record of personal knowledge is placed before us. It is said vaguely by the petitioner No. 1 that he resigned in the year 1970. It also does not appear that any such resignation came to be accepted. Indeed, the record bears out that the services of the petitioner No. 1 several placed on deputation with the samiti. It is said vaguely by the petitioner No. 1 that he resigned in the year 1970. It also does not appear that any such resignation came to be accepted. Indeed, the record bears out that the services of the petitioner No. 1 several placed on deputation with the samiti. On December 2, 1970 the Board of Directors, samiti resolved to avail of the services of the petitioner as Secretary on deputation. The words on deputation' are expressly referred to in the resolution passed by the Board of Directors for this purpose vide Annexure TV' to the counter affidavit. It was stated also that a request be made to the Adhyaksha, Zila Bank for this proposal being acceded to. By.resolution passed on 31st December, 1970 the petitioner was appointed Secretary of the Samiti and he drew deputation allowances even during 1974-75 and onwards vide Annexure C.A.II/C.A.V. In paragraph 4 (2) (a)(b) of the Business Regulations framed by the Federal Authority under Section 123 of the Act provision made so far as relevant was to the following effect: - "2 (a) All such supervisors who at any time held aliped with the Union and whose lien was subsequently terminated on account of transfer of their services to a District Central Co-operative Bank may exercise the option of coming back under the control of the Authority before June 30, 1976 provided that the Registrar may extend the date for exercise of the option for a period not exceeding 90 day and in that event the time limit prescribed in clause (b) shall stand extended by the same period. (b) Where option referred to in sub-clause (a) is to be exercised, the supervisor concerned shall submit him option on Form `A' to the Chairman District Committee/District Assistant Registrar who may forward it with his recommendation to the Member-Secretary before July 31, 1976." 4. As required under this provision the petitioner No. 1 submitted his option on June 30, 1976 in the prescribed Form `A' vide Annexure VI to the counter affidavit. Therein the petitioner described himself as the employee of the Zila Bank. There would have been no question of his exercising this option under paragraph 4 (2) (a) aforementioned in case he had resigned the services of the Zila Bank and had ceased to be under its control any longer. Therein the petitioner described himself as the employee of the Zila Bank. There would have been no question of his exercising this option under paragraph 4 (2) (a) aforementioned in case he had resigned the services of the Zila Bank and had ceased to be under its control any longer. The provision apply in relation to a Supervisor who at any time had lien with the Union and this was subsequently terminated" on account of transfer of their services "to a District/Central Co-operative Bank. In the event of a resignation the petitioner will have ceased to be placed under the Zila Bank with effect from the acceptance thereof and there could be no question of his seeking to avail of this provision or describing himself as an employee of the Zila Bank. All this is consistent with one proposition alone as asserted by the respondent No. 1 and urged by the learned Standing Counsel that there was in fact no resignation - by the petitioner from the services of the Zila Bank and that he had been placed on deputation only with the Samiti in capacity as the Secretary on the request made by the latter as appearing from the resolution passed on December 2, 1970. 5. It is not in dispute that the option exercised by the petitioner on June 30, 1976 was not accepted by the Committee of Management Federal Authority in its resolution dated November 24, 1976. The communication of the decision was made to the petitioner on January 3, 1977 by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies/Adhyaksha, Committee of Management, Union vide Annexure IU to the writ petition. As a result the petitioner No. 1 was not taken in as a Co-operative supervisor by the Federal Authority. In the case of a Co-operative Society of which annual lending in the Co-operative year was Rs. 5,00,000 or more, the secretary had to be drawn from the cadre of the Co-operative Supervisors maintained by the Federal Authority. The lending of the Samiti in"the preceding Co-operative year 1975-76 was more than Rs. 5,00,000. The petitioner No. 1 having been rejected as the Co-operative Supervisor under the order of the Federal Authority aforementioned he could not continue as the Secretary of the Samiti. The lending of the Samiti in"the preceding Co-operative year 1975-76 was more than Rs. 5,00,000. The petitioner No. 1 having been rejected as the Co-operative Supervisor under the order of the Federal Authority aforementioned he could not continue as the Secretary of the Samiti. The option exercised by the petitioner having not been accepted he was not placed in the cadre of the co-operative Supervisor maintained by the Federal Authority in consequence whereof the Zila Bank terminated his services on February 19, 1977 and following the same his deputation as Secretary with the Samiti was also brought to a close. The averments contained in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit are not specifically refuted as can be gathered from paragraph 17 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by petitioner. 6. Reliance was placed by Sri Chauhan upon rules 20/21 of the Centralised Services Rules. These rules read as follows "20. The existing employees of the Societies at the commencement of these Rules shall be deemed to be provisionally absorbed in the Centralised Service : Provided that the employees provisionally absorbed shall continue to draw their salaries and other allowances in their respective old scales from the societies concerned. 21. The existing employees of the societies taken provisionally on the strength of the centralised service shall be finally absorbed in the said service after their screening arranged in accordance with the instructions issued be the 'Registrar, Co-operative Societies, in this behalf." 7. As mentioned above, the Centralised Services Rules were formulated under Section 122-A of the act and came into effect on August 19, 1976. The argument advanced for the petitioners is that Purshottanr Singh should be deemed to be provisionally absorbed in the Central Service. This could not be possible for the reason that rules 20/21 apply to the case of existing employees of the primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies. On the date immediately preceding August 19, 1976 when these rules came in force, the petitioner No. 1 was not an employee as such of the Samiti-primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, but was on the other hand, the employee of the Zila Bank and had been placed on deputation with the Samiti. In capacity as an employee of the Zila Bank he could not claim the benefit under Rules 20/21 or Section 31 of the Act for that matter. In capacity as an employee of the Zila Bank he could not claim the benefit under Rules 20/21 or Section 31 of the Act for that matter. The petitioner No. 1 having failed to substantiate his contention that he had resigned the services of the Zila Bank and was not on deputation with the Samiti, these provisions are of no avail. It is not correct on his part to contend, therefore, that he shall be deemed to be provisionally absorbed in the Centralised Service. We find in consequence that the order dated February 19, 1977 determining the services of the petitioner is not without jurisdiction, or otherwise invalid. 8. The petition consequently fails and is dismissed with costs. The interim orders dated May 5, 1977/October 23, 1978 shall stand vacated.