Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 96 (HP)

GIAN CHAND v. STATE OF HP

2001-05-21

A.L.VAIDYA, V.K.BHATNAGAR

body2001
JUDGMENT JUSTICE A.L VAIDYA, J (Retd.), CHAIRMAN:-The present applicants have sought for the following reliefs in this Original Application: (i) Respondents should appoint the applicants as Wool Graders in the regular scale of the post w.e.f. November 1999 for having undergone the prescribed initial training and having qualified the terminal examination in October, 1999 with all consequential benefits; (ii) Respondents should pay the cost of this O.A. to the applicants, and (iii) Any other or further order or direction deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the applicants.11 2. The simple case of the applicants as pleaded has been that as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules (A-l), the applicants were duly appointed as Wool Graders in August, 1997 (A-2 pattern) against initially available posts and under Rule 7(vii), they were to undergo an initial departmental training for 18 months and after successful completion of training and after passing the terminal examination, the applicants were to be placed in the regular scale of Rs. 1200-2460 revised further since January 1,1996. According to the applicants, they did undergo the training but failed in the terminal examination held on April 05, 1999 and they were asked on April 26,1999 (Annexure A-3) to undergo training for six more months which were again to be followed by a fresh examination. This extended period of training as per applicants was however, reduced to three months later on. It has been pleaded by the applicants that they completed three months extended training from May 10, 1999 to August 10, 1999 and appeared in the examination held on October 8,1999 (Annexure A-4). As per applicants, the result of the examination has not been declared so far but the applicants were given to understand that they had qualified the examination and were entitled to be placed in the regular scale after the completion of the requisite formalities. The respondents had not released the regular pay scale and given appointments to the applicants. Representation in this behalf also did not bear any result, hence this Original application. 3. This application has been contested on behalf of respondent No. 2, the H.P. State Wool Fed. Ltd., Shimla, the sole respondent in the present Original Application as the name of respondent No. I, the State of Himachal Pradesh was got deleted by the applicants. The respondent has not disputed the facts revealed by the applicant. 3. This application has been contested on behalf of respondent No. 2, the H.P. State Wool Fed. Ltd., Shimla, the sole respondent in the present Original Application as the name of respondent No. I, the State of Himachal Pradesh was got deleted by the applicants. The respondent has not disputed the facts revealed by the applicant. However, it has been pleaded by the respondent that the names of the applicants were forwarded by the replying respondent for approval of the appointment but till date, no order had been received from the Government. There were other objections taken. 4. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the documents filed in the present proceedings have also been scrutinised. 5. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent has submitted two fold arguments. The first being that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the present Original Application and secondly, the appointment in the present case is to be approved by the Registrar which has not yet been done inspite of references made to the Government in this behalf by the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to Section 72 of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. This Section deals with the dispute which may be referred to arbitration. According to the learned counsel, the present dispute under Section 72 has to be referred to the arbitration and on that score, the present Original Application was not legally maintainable. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent could not satisfy us as to how the present cause is covered under Section 72 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The present applicants who have admittedly not been appointed by the respondent No. 2 and are out of service, will not on any stretch of imagination be covered under Section 72 of the Co-operative Societies Act which pertains apart from other persons between Society or an employee. Admittedly, the applicants are not employees of the Society as yet. In this view of the matter, Section 72 of the Co-operative Societies Act, will not be applicable to the facts of the present case and this Forum, as such, has got the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter under reference. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred Rule 56(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971, which runs as under:- "56. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred Rule 56(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971, which runs as under:- "56. Officers and employees of co-operative Societies.- (1) Not with standing anything contained in the bye-laws of a society, no Co-operative Society shall appoint any person its paid officer or employee in any category of service unless he possess the qualifications and furnishes the security, if so specified by the Registrar, from time to time for such category of service in the society, or for the class of societies to which it belongs. The condition of service of the employees of the societies shall be specified by the Registrar." On the basis of the aforesaid provision, it has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the Registrar has to approve the appointment of the applicants but the same has not yet been received. Therefore, respondent is not legally competent to appoint the applicants as prayed for by them. 9. In order to appreciate the aforesaid aspect, some facts which are not being disputed have been referred at this stage. 10. A copy of the relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules is Annexure A-l on record. Rule 7(vii) which is relevant, is being reproduced hereunder:- “vii. Honorarium Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month during training period. After successful completion of training, an examination will be conducted by the Department of Animal Husbandry, H.P. Successful candidate will be placed in the pay scale of the grade at the initial pay of the grade." 11. The pay scale referred in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Wool Graders is as under:- "1200-40-1320-45-1500-50-2000-60-2060-70-2130/1410-45-1500-50-2000-60-2060-70-2460." There is no dispute with respect to the qualifications acquired by the applicants as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. They have not I only completed their training but also qualified the examination conducted by the Department of Animal Husbandry. 12. These Rules are Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Wool Graders in H.P. State Wool Federation Limited Shimla. 13. Annexure A-2, which was the Office Order passed in favour of the one applicants, was issued by the General Manager, H.P. State Wool Fed. Ltd. Shimla. Paras No. 12 and 13 of this Office Order are being reproduced hereunder:- "12. During training period, he will be paid Rs. 13. Annexure A-2, which was the Office Order passed in favour of the one applicants, was issued by the General Manager, H.P. State Wool Fed. Ltd. Shimla. Paras No. 12 and 13 of this Office Order are being reproduced hereunder:- "12. During training period, he will be paid Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month as stipend by this Federation and no other expenses will be paid. 13. After completion of training, examination/test will have to be qualified and successful candidates are likely to be appointed against the post on daily wages/regular basis subject to approval of recruitment and promotion Rules in pay scale attached to the post of Wool graders i.e. Vety. Pharmacist." 14. At the time of issuing of this Annexure A-2, there were draft Recruitment and Promotion Rules which have now been finalised as per Annexure A-l. 15. There is nothing in this Office order (Annexure A-2) that the appointment is to be approved by the Government or by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies as has been argued. Such a condition is also not in the Recruitment and promotion Rules. 16. In the aforesaid background not to place the applicants in the pay scales of the grade, at the initial pay of the grade as referred in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and not to give appointment in that behalf is definitely not only doing injustice to the applicants but otherwise injustice to the applicants but otherwise respondents action as referred to above is not praise-worthy being not in accordance with law. 17. Even if for arguments sake, the approval of the Registrar is to be taken it is for the respondents to do the needful and the applicants should not suffer for that lapse. 18. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present Original Application is allowed and respondent is directed to issue the relevant orders in favour of the applicants in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules referred to above within two months from today. However parties are left to bear their own costs.