Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 41 (ALL)

SHIV MANGAL SINGH v. CANE COMMISSIONER EVAM ADDHYAKSHA, RAJKIYA GANNA PRADHIKARAN

2000-01-11

BHANWAR SINGH

body2000
BHANWAR SINGH, J. ( 1 ) SHIV Mangal Singh and Brij Nandan Mishra have, by filing this writ petition. Invoked this courts jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay their salary including arrears and further for another writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 23. 7. 1992, 4. 8. 1992 and 14. 8. 1992, by virtue of which, the petitioners were asked to join the Cane Societies. One more prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to compel the petitioners to opt for their absorption in the Cane Societies has been pressed Into service. ( 2 ) AS recited in the petition, the petitioners were recruited in vasuli Section (Vasuli Anubhag)of opposite party No. 3, namely, Prabandh Nideshak, U. P. Sahkari Ganna Samlti Sangh. Whereas Shiv Mangal Singh was recruited as a Process Surveyor, the other petitioner. Brij nandan Mishra was appointed as a Clerk. In December, 1991, the petitioners were denied their right to draw their salary and their representation dated 13. 2. 1992 to the Prabandh Nideshak, U. P. Sahkari Ganna Samiti Sangh did not yield any result. Thereafter, the District Cane Officer evam Adhyaksha. Zila Seva Pradhikaran, Hardol recommended the petitioners claim for payment of their salary including arrears and requested the Prabandh Nideshak of Ganna Samiti sangh to clear their up-to-date dues on account of salary and other allowances. However. Inspite of several other letters having been sent by the petitioners, the opposite parties did not pay any heed to their request as a result of which, they continued to serve the Vasull Section of opposite party No. 3 without any remuneration. In the meantime, the opposite parties, in an arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal manner, sent a letter dated 17. 7. 1992 asking the petitioners to give their consent for merger of their services in the Cane Societies. The Prabandh Nideshak of ganna Samiti Sangh sought approval of the Cane Commissioner Evam Adhyaksha. Rajkiya ganna Pradhikaran regarding merger of the petitioners services with that of Cane Societies. The petitioners were then asked their choice of particular Society in which they would have liked to be absorbed. The petitioners were also threatened that in case they would fall to send their option, their services were liable to be terminated. Rajkiya ganna Pradhikaran regarding merger of the petitioners services with that of Cane Societies. The petitioners were then asked their choice of particular Society in which they would have liked to be absorbed. The petitioners were also threatened that in case they would fall to send their option, their services were liable to be terminated. The reason on the basis of which the petitioners were asked to exercise their option was that the Vasuli Section was likely to be wound up shortly rendering the officials of that section to be jobless. It was on humanitarian ground that the petitioners were considered for being accommodated and absorbed in the District cane Societies. However, the contention of the petitioners was that they were the employees of ganna Samiti Sangh and if at all their service was to be merged, they were entitled to be absorbed in the service of the Sangh which is a centralised body. It has also been asserted by the petitioners that in case they were compelled to opt for their merger in District Cane Samitis, their future prospects would be jeopardised as they have to lose their seniority. Further. It has been stated that promotional prospects in District Cane Samitis are not encouraging as compared to that of Ganna Samiti Sangh. It was under these circumstances that the petitioners were not willing to opt for their services being merged with District Samitis and since they were employed as servants of the Ganna Samiti Sangh, they could not have been compelled to join the district Cane Samitis. However, when they were forced to exercise their option under the threats of termination of their services in case of default, they were obliged to file this writ petition reiterating their right to be absorbed in the service of Ganna Samiti Sangh by praying different kinds of writ as indicated earlier. ( 3 ) THE opposite parly No. 3 filed his reply through short counter-affidavit of Sri K. N. Mathpal. Senior Assistant in the office of the U. P. Cooperative Cane Unions Federation Limiled, lucknow. Sri Mathpal has asserted that the petitioners contention to the effect that they were employees of the Federation was absolutely baseless. . . . . He conceded that the petitioners were employed under the recovery scheme which in itself was a temporary scheme. However, the scheme continued for a considerable period of time. Sri Mathpal has asserted that the petitioners contention to the effect that they were employees of the Federation was absolutely baseless. . . . . He conceded that the petitioners were employed under the recovery scheme which in itself was a temporary scheme. However, the scheme continued for a considerable period of time. After the expiry of the said Scheme, the opposite party No. 1, namely, the Cane Commissioner Evam Adhyaksha, Rajkiya Ganna pradhikaran passed an order that the employees of the Scheme may be absorbed in other Cane societies. The Cane Commissioner. In pursuance of a direction of the High Court issued in a writ petition filed by similarly situated employees of the recovery scheme, determined that the employees of the scheme were not the employees of the Ganna Samiti Sangh, instead they belonged to a section created under a temporary Scheme and since the scheme itself had expired, the employees of that Scheme instead of being rendered jobless should have been, on humanitarian ground, regularised in the District Cane Samitis. Vide order dated 12. 8. 1976, the registrar. Cane Cooperative Societies had clarified that the recovery scheme shall not be under the supervision and control of Cane Unions Federation. As asserted by Mr. Mathpal, on this ground alone, the petition was liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. ( 5 ) IT is admitted to the opposite party No. 3 that the petitioners were employed in Vasuli Section under a temporary recovery scheme. The exact year of their employment has neither been given by the opposite party No. 3 nor by the petitioners themselves. However, it has clearly been conceded by Sri Mathpal in para 3 of the short counter- affidavit that the recovery scheme continued for a considerable period of time and the petitioners who were employed under the said scheme served the Section in their capacity as Surveyor and Clerk as pleaded by them. It was asserted further by Mr. Mathpal that the recovery scheme was closed following there being no work left. On expiry of the said Scheme, a decision was taken by the Cane Commissioner, who is ex officio Adhyaksh of Rajkiya Ganna Pradhikaran that the employees of the recovery scheme might be absorbed in the District Cane Samitis. It was asserted further by Mr. Mathpal that the recovery scheme was closed following there being no work left. On expiry of the said Scheme, a decision was taken by the Cane Commissioner, who is ex officio Adhyaksh of Rajkiya Ganna Pradhikaran that the employees of the recovery scheme might be absorbed in the District Cane Samitis. It is significant to note that a copy of the said decision has not been filed before this court. Also, the terms and conditions on which the petitioners were appointed have not been brought on record. The controversy would have been easily resolved had the opposite party No. 3 filed for perusal of the court the relevant documents pertaining to the recovery scheme. Even if the said recovery scheme was temporary in nature, the conditions of service would have helped this Court to arrive at a definite conclusion. Every decision of a public authority has to a just, reasonable and not arbitrary. If keeping in view the long tenure of service rendered by the petitioners, the Cane Commissioner had taken a decision to allow them to continue in the employment of Ganna Pradhikaran, the preference should have been given to their choice particularly when the petitioners and the employees situated alike were considered under the Scheme as employees of Cane Samiti Sangh. A perusal of D. O. letter no. 2/c (Vasuli Khand) Lucknow dated July 15. 1971, written bv the Cane Commissioner to all the District Cane Officers, as contained in Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated April 9, 1997, would reveal that the recovery scheme was evolved with a view to enable Ganna sahkari Samitis to realise the loan advanced to their members. Since there were huge arrears outstanding against the members of Ganna Sahkari Samitis. on account of dilly-dally policy of the Ganna Samitis. It had become essential to constitute a recovery section comprising employees Including Recovery Officers and Sales Officers besides other staff. In para 16 of the said D. O. letter, it was clearly indicated that all the employees including officers and servants employed under the recovery scheme would be termed and known as the employees of Ganna samiti Sangh and they would be bound by the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of Ganna Samiti Sangh. Their pay and allowances shall also be paid at par with their counterparts of Ganna Samiti Sangh. Their pay and allowances shall also be paid at par with their counterparts of Ganna Samiti Sangh. The opposite party No. 3 has not been able to countenance the above D. O. letter Issued more than 28 years back nor any other document having provisions contrary to the recitals of the said D. O. letter has been filed for perusal of this Court. A reference was, no doubt, made by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 to an order dated 4. 9. 1992 (Annexure-1 to the short counter affidavit), passed by the Cane Commissioner whereby he had decided that the officials working under the temporary recovery scheme were not the employees of the Ganna Samiti Sangh. However, it is surprising to note that the Cane commissioner while passing the aforesaid order has not referred to the D. O. letter dated 15th july, 1971, issued by the then Cane Commissioner nor he has given any plausible explanation to deviate from the guidelines as contained in the D. O. , a copy of which is annexed with the supplementary affidavit. It appears that the Cane Commissioner avoided a reference to the said d. O. letter with a view to arrive at a contrary decision in an unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary manner. The instance of his arbitrariness is obvious when he observes in para 9 (kha) at page 2 of order (Annexure-1 to the short counter affidavit) that mere payment of salary, bonus, annual increment and other allowances to the petitioners at par with the counterpart employees of Ganna sangh does not invest them the status of the employees of Ganna Sangh and the reason for not treating them to be at par was that the employees of recovery scheme were recruited under a special scheme and they were paid their dues out of the fund termed as vasuli Charges. These reasons are hollow and not sustainable being arbitrary. ( 6 ) ANOTHER reason assigned to the conclusion drawn by the Cane Commissioner was that the recovery scheme was not under the supervision and control of Ganna Sangh. Again it was a baseless reasoning. These reasons are hollow and not sustainable being arbitrary. ( 6 ) ANOTHER reason assigned to the conclusion drawn by the Cane Commissioner was that the recovery scheme was not under the supervision and control of Ganna Sangh. Again it was a baseless reasoning. The important factors were that the employees recruited under the Scheme were paid their salary in higher pay-scale than that of the employees of District Ganna Samitis and further they were held to be entitled to draw their salary and other allowances including bonus at par with the employees of Ganna Sangh and it was probably because all the employees under the Scheme were treated to be the servants of Ganna Sangh and as referred to above, this kind of status Invested upon the employees was clearly mentioned by Sri Laxmi Kant Nagar, the then Cane Commissioner in his D. O. letter dated July 15. 1971. Not an iota of documentary evidence has been referred to or brought before this Court in support of the contention pressed into service by opposite party No. 3 that the petitioners were never treated to be employees of ganna Sangh. As observed above, two important features, namely, the payment of the petitioners salary and allowances at par with the employees of the Ganna Sangh and vivid recitals of their status as recited in Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit are real factors to determine the controversy in issue. And since these two important aspects of the matter clearly support the petitioners case of their being the employees of Ganna Sangh, their claim to be absorbed in the service of the said Sangh appears to be quite reasonable. Otherwise also, it is quite natural and in consonance with the natural principles of justice that a person who has served with a particular status should not be driven downward thereby marring his future prospects. Every employee in a public service whether Governmental or Public Sector undertaking, comes with some ambition to rise to the heights befitting to his suitability, capability and competence. Similar must have been the expectations of the petitioners who admittedly served, and very satisfactorily, the recovery scheme making it fully successful. Then there does not appear to be any reason to deprive them of their claim to be absorbed in the service of Ganna Sangh. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. Similar must have been the expectations of the petitioners who admittedly served, and very satisfactorily, the recovery scheme making it fully successful. Then there does not appear to be any reason to deprive them of their claim to be absorbed in the service of Ganna Sangh. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the opposite parties to absorb the petitioners in the service of Ganna Sangh and pay their salary as admissible to them in old and new pay scales according to their old and new cadres. A writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 23. 7. 1992. 4. 8. 1992 and 14. 8. 1992 directing the petitioners to exercise their option for merger of their service in District Cane Samltis is also issued. .