Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 652 (ALL)

Kunwar Pal v. State of U. P.

2017-02-28

ASHOK KUMAR, V.K.SHUKLA

body2017
JUDGMENT Kunwar Pal has filed present special appeal assailing the validity of the order dated 24.1.2017 passed in Writ-A No. 3456 of 2017 (Kunwar Pal Vs. State of U.P. & others) wherein learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition being not maintainable. 2. Brief background of the case is that petitioner appellant claims that he has been performing and discharging duties as Instrument Attendant w.e.f. 28.3.1996 and in this background petitioner submits that he deserves to be offered regular appointment on the said post as well as the salary of Instrument Attendant of Engineering Department, Kisan Chini Sugar Mill Najibabad, Bijnor. Petitioner appellant in the said direction came to this Court and this Court on 24.1.2017 has proceeded to pass the following order: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vrindavan Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent No.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has come to this Court seeking regularization of his engagement in a private co-operative society. This is a private co-operative society which is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution for maintainability of the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable." 3. Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner appellant, has contended before this Court that as of now statutory rules have been framed known as Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Chini Mill Evam Aaswani Karmchari Seva Niyamawali, 2015 and, in view of this, writ petition was clearly maintainable and learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the request of petitioner appellant instead of proceeding to non-suit the claim of petitioner appellant by mentioning that writ is not maintainable. 4. Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Vrindavan Mishra, Advocate, appearing for opposite party nos. 2 and 3, on the other hand, contended that claim of petitioner appellant is not at all covered by Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Chini Mill Evam Aaswani Karmchari Seva Niyamawali, 2015 and once the entire relief was being claimed against the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill Ltd., writ petition has rightly been held to be non maintainable. 5. 2 and 3, on the other hand, contended that claim of petitioner appellant is not at all covered by Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Chini Mill Evam Aaswani Karmchari Seva Niyamawali, 2015 and once the entire relief was being claimed against the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill Ltd., writ petition has rightly been held to be non maintainable. 5. After respective arguments have been advanced the factual situation on which there is no dispute that in exercise of authority conferred under Section 122 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, Rules in question have been framed known as Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Chini Mill Evam Aaswani Karmchari Seva Niyamawali, 2015 and under the aforementioned rules what we find that a full fledged mechanism has been provided for offering appointment by way of promotion, by way of direct recruitment and the field of confirmation, seniority etc. but in the entire rules there is no such provision provided for extending the benefit of regularization, as has been claimed by the petitioner appellant on the post in service on account of long length of service having been put in by the petitioner appellant. 6. Once the claim of petitioner appellant is not at all covered by any statutory provisions nor it is covered under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Chini Mill Evam Aaswani Karmchari Seva Niyamawali, 2015, then in such a situation as per law settled by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. Shatrughan Nishad, 2003 (8) SCC 639 , that Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill is a cooperative society and not at all a State or its instrumentality or its agency within the meaning of Article 12 nor it is discharging any public functions, accordingly, writ petition is not competent and maintainable as against said cooperative society, in view of this, learned Single Judge is absolutely right at the point of time when he has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition as on its face value there is no violation of any statutory rules and regulations and there is no statutory obligation cast upon Kisan Chini Sugar Mill Najibabad, Bijnor to regularize the petitioner appellant, as has been prayed for. Special appeal is dismissed, accordingly.