Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 432 (JK)

Mohan Lal v. State

2017-07-26

B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were employees of one of the Six Farmers Service Cooperative Societies which were ordered to be wound up on 27.07.1990 by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, J&K, Jammu, in terms of Section 65 read with Section 66 of the Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, whereafter the said societies were liquidated. 2. SWP No.1648/1998 and SWP No.1371/1998 were filed by employees of the Farmers Service Cooperative Societies which had been ordered to be wound up on 27.07.1990 by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, J&K, Jammu. The same were disposed of vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2001. Operative part of the order is reproduced hereunder:- “………(iii) That the State Government would also consider the claims of the petitioners in the same way as has been done in the case of employees of Rural Electric Cooperative Society, Samba, and would accord same treatment to the petitioners; ………….” 3. Another Writ petition i.e. SWP No.1047/1999 was filed in which petitioner No.1 therein is petitioner No.20 in the instant writ petition. SWP No.1047/1999 was disposed of vide order dated 16.07.2001 in line with the order dated 31.05.2001 in the aforementioned two writ petitions. Thereafter, case of the employees of the wound up Societies was considered and speaking order dated 19.12.2002 was passed. Relevant extract of the same is reproduced hereunder:- “Whereas the Hon’ble High Court also directed consideration of these employees in Government Service on the analogy of the employees of Rural Electric Cooperative Society Samba. While considering their claim, it is revealed that the employees of the said electric Society were technicians and could provide useful service in the Government considering this they have been adjusted in Power Development Department, the petitioners, being employees of FSS, have no technical qualification and, therefore, cannot be given the same treatment. Moreover bad financial condition of the Govt. does not warrant absorption of the petitioners in Government service. Now, therefore, keeping in view the independent identities of the said Societies regulating their own affairs, the respondents are not answerable for the misdeeds committed by the Management leading to their winding up and ultimate liquidation. The adjustment of employees of the Societies numbering 95 is a dispute between the Managements and the employees of these Societies who appointed bulk of people as employees without considering the financial position of these Societies. The adjustment of employees of the Societies numbering 95 is a dispute between the Managements and the employees of these Societies who appointed bulk of people as employees without considering the financial position of these Societies. The Government is not in a position to consider their appointment because of the fact that the employees were appointed by the Management of the Societies having their own bye-laws and service rules. Hence the claim of the employees (Petitioners) in response to the order in Writ Petitions No. SWP No.1648/98 and 1371/98 is out rightly rejected. By order of the Government of J&K, Under Secretary to Govt. Agri/Cooperative Deptt. No.Coop-41/2001(S) dated:19.12.2002.” 4. The case of the employees in question was rejected by holding that they were not similarly placed as the employees of Rural Electric Cooperative Society, Samba. The same was challenged by way of SWP No.1963/2001, SWP No.1691/2006 & SWP No.1786/2004. The same were dismissed leading to filing of LPA(SW) Nos.44/2016, 64/2016 and 65/2016. The Hon’ble Division Bench allowed the appeals by holding that the respondents could not have gone into the question as to whether the employees were similarly situated as the employees of Rural Electric Cooperative Society, Samba, in view of the directions by the Court dated 31.05.2001 that the State Government would consider the claims of the petitioners in the same way as had been done in the case of employees of Rural Electric Cooperative Society, Samba, and would accord same treatment to the petitioners. Besides the directions by the Writ Court dated 31.05.2001 in SWP No.1648/1998 and SWP No.1371/1998 had attained finality. In the light of the position as noted above, the Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the judgment dated 01.02.2016 in SWP No.1963/2001, SWP No.1691/2006 and SWP No.1786/2004 respectively and directed the respondents to comply with directions dated 31.05.2001 in SWP No.1648/1998 and SWP No.1371/1998 in letter and spirit within six months from 27.04.2017. Learned counsel states that SWP No.1047/1999 had been disposed of in terms of order of this Court dated 31.05.2001 in SWP No.1648/1998 and 1371/1998 and the judgment dated 16.07.2001 in SWP No.1047/1999 had also attained finality, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the orders dated 27.04.2017 in LPA(SW) Nos.44/2016, 64/2016 and 65/2016. 5. Notice of motion. Mr. Ranjit Singh Jamwal, learned Dy. 5. Notice of motion. Mr. Ranjit Singh Jamwal, learned Dy. A.G. accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and stated that he does not oppose the consideration of the claim of the petitioner in the light of decision of this Court as well as Hon’ble Division Bench provided the same are applicable. 6. I have heard learned counsel and am of the view that in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA(SW) Nos.44/2016, 64/2016 and 65/2016, the claim of the petitioners for similar treatment as ordered to be accorded to the petitioners of SWP No.1648/1998 and SWP No.1371/1998 in terms of the judgment of the Writ Court dated 31.05.2001 is liable to be allowed in the same terms since the petitioners in the instant writ petition were the petitioners in SWP No.1648/1998, SWP No.1371/1998 as well as SWP No.1047/1999 decided on 31.05.2001 as well as 16.07.2001 respectively. Accordingly, with consent of parties, the writ petition is taken on board and is disposed of in the terms as mentioned in the succeeding paragraph. 7. Learned counsel further states that the only reason necessitating the filing of the instant writ petition is that seven petitioners in the instant writ petition i.e. petitioner Nos.22 to 27 were not the petitioners in SWP No.1371 and 1648 of 1998 but were the petitioners in SWP Nos.1963/2001, 1691/2006 and 1786/2004 respectively and had been impleaded as proforma respondents in the LPAs arising out of said writ petitions. On dismissal of the aforesaid writ petitions, the aforementioned LPAs i.e., LPA(SW) Nos.44/2016, 64/2016 & 65/2016 were filed leading to the passing of order dated 27.04.2017 and the petitioners herein are not being accorded the same benefits on the ground that the petitioners herein were proforma respondents in LPA Nos.44, 64 & 65 of 2016 respectively. 8. Learned Dy.A.G. states that it has to be verified as to whether the petitioners in the instant writ petition were the petitioners in SWP No.1648/1998 and SWP No.1371/1998 and it is only, in case it is found that the petitioners herein were the petitioners of the aforementioned two writ petitions, they would be entitled to the same relief as has been granted by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA(SW) Nos.44/2016, 64/2016 and 65/2016 vide judgment dated 27.04.2017. 9. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the petitioners herein were the petitioners of SWP No.1648/1998 and SWP No.1371/1998 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 31.05.2001 and the 3rd writ petition i.e., SWP No.1047/1999 was disposed of vide judgment dated 16.07.2001 in terms of the decision dated 31.05.2001 in the aforementioned two writ petitions. Out of the remaining seven petitioners i.e. petitioner Nos.22 to 27, they were the petitioners in SWP Nos.1963/2001, 1786/2004 and 1691/2006 which were filed challenging the rejection of the claim of the petitioners as ordered in SWP Nos.1371 and 1648 of 1998 and 1047/1999. SWP Nos.1963/2001, 1786/2004 and 1691/2006 were dismissed. All except petitioner Nos.22 to 27 challenged the decision in SWP Nos.1963/2001, 1786/2004 and 1691/2006 by way of LPA Nos.44, 64 & 65 of 2016 wherein the aforementioned seven petitioners were impleaded as proforma respondents. 10. The Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA(SW) Nos.44/2016, 64/2016 and 65/2016 has vide its judgment dated 27.04.2017 ordered that the benefits of the orders dated 31.05.2001 have to be accorded to the petitioners of the said writ petitions without going into the question as to whether the petitioners therein were similarly situated as the employees of Rural Electric Cooperative Society, Samba. Since the petitioners herein were also the petitioners in SWP No.1648/1998, SWP No.1371/1998, SWP No.1047/1999 and SWP Nos.1963/2001, 1786/2004 & 1691/2006 which are on similar lines, then there is no reason as to why the respondents are denying the benefit of the decision of this Court dated 27.04.2017 in LPA(SW) Nos.44/2016, 64/2016 and 65/2016 to the petitioners herein. 11. In the light of the aforementioned position as noted above, the writ petition is allowed in limine and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners on the same lines as has been ordered in LPA(SW) Nos.44/2016, 64/2016 and 65/2016 vide judgment dated 27.04.2017 subject to verification that the petitioners of the instant writ petition were petitioners of SWP No.1648/1998, SWP No.1371/1998 which were disposed of vide judgment dated 31.05.2001 and SWP No.1047/1999 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 16.07.2001 as also petitioners in SWP Nos. 1963/2001, 1786/2004 & 1691/2006. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible preferably within the time span as indicated by the Hon’ble Division Bench in its judgment dated 27.04.2017. With the aforementioned directions, writ petition alongwith MP stands disposed of.