Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 233 (PNJ)

S. N. Sharma v. State of Haryana

2006-01-30

S.S.NIJJAR, S.S.SARON

body2006
JUDGMENT S.S. NIJJAR, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the Paper-book. 2. Petitioners are working as Managers Grade “B” and “C” as well as Field Inspectors (Senior and Junior) with the Haryana State Supply and as Field Inspectors (Senior and Junior) with the Haryana State Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the HAFED”). Their service conditions are governed by the Haryana State Supply and Marketing Cooperative Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1988. The petitioners claim that they are stagnating on the posts on which they are working, even though they have put in more than 25 to 30 years of service with the HAFED. Respondent no.2 circulated the service rules for Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies working in the State of Haryana at Mandi level, to all the cooperative marketing societies by Memo No.8/8/87/MA- ll/l7250-330 dated 20.8.2003 (Annexure P-3). The rules came into effect w.e.f. 14.8.2003. These rules provided that the posts of Accountant and Manager shall be tilled from out of the Common Cadre maintained by HAFED under Section 37 of’ the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. But an exception was made for 5 Societies, namely, Thanesar, Ambala Cantt., Shahbad Markanda, Sonepat and Kharkhoda. It was provided that the Managers in these Societies who do not opt for common cadre may be allowed to work in their respective Cooperative Societies and no Manager of common cadre shall be posted in these societies till their retirement. Respondent no.3 did not agree with the inclusion of Rule 21 in the Rules. Therefore, no consent was given by respondent no.3 for framing the aforesaid rules. lnspite of the objection raised by respondent no.3, respondent no.2 issued a directive to make the necessary amendment in the common cadre rules. Respondent no.3 has declined to accept the absorption of the Managers of the Cooperative Societies in the common cadre. They have, however, recommended that the rule be re-fixed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the Primary Cooperative Marketing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules could not be promulgated without the concurrence of HAFED. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission. The Common Cadre Rules have been framed under Section 37 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 in consultation with respondent No.3. The proposed amendment in the Common Cadre Rules is to be carried out by respondent no.3. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission. The Common Cadre Rules have been framed under Section 37 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 in consultation with respondent No.3. The proposed amendment in the Common Cadre Rules is to be carried out by respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 in his reply has categorically stated that petitioners no. I to 5 have got two promotions in their service career. Further as and when the turn of the rest of the petitioners will come, they will also be promoted on the basis of their service record. Respondent no.3 accepts that respondent no.2 has the power to issue the directions and to frame/amend the service rules. It is categorically stated in paragraph 12 of the written statement that the five Managers in the Cooperative Societies mentioned above have submitted their willingness to be brought on the Common Cadre of HAFED as Manager Grade 1. The matter for relaxation in the common cadre of HAFED was placed before the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 2.1.2004. The Board of Directors decided to take action as per direction of respondent no.2. A request was made to respondent no.2 for giving relaxation in the Common Cadre Rules for taking the Managers of CMS Ambala Cantt. and Sonepat on the common cadre of HAFED. Respondent no.2 has granted the necessary approval which has been attached to the written statement as Annexure R3/3. 4. Learned counsel for the State of Haryana states that the letter dated 9.2.2005 giving permission for relaxation of the common cadre rules was given on the specific request made by respondent no.3. This was done only to avoid the reversion of the petitioners. Since the petitioners are objecting to the relaxation having been granted, the State of Haryana have to reconsider the matter and issue necessary instructions for amending the common cadre rules. 5. In view of the above, no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. The writ petition is disposed of.