JUDGMENT Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Heard Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking grant of annual increments which is due to her since June, 2006 as well as promotional pay scale which was paid by the respondents to similarly situated Class-IV employees. 2. The petitioner is the widow of one late Madan Gopal Singh who was working under the respondent No. 2 and died while in service. She was given appointment on compassionate ground by an order dated 4.5.1995, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. By an order dated 18.6.1998, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, her services were regularised. By an order dated 4.9.1998, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, her services were terminated on the ground that same had not been approved by the Cooperative Institutional Services Board. This order of termination was recalled by an order dated 27.5.1999, Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The petitioner has, thereafter continuously worked in the department. 3. A dispute arose with regard to payment of backwages for the period when the petitioner was out of service. She approached the labour Court and an agreement was drawn up between the petitioner and the District Cooperative Bank, Jaunpur and under the terms and conditions as drawn up by the labour Court she was paid all her back wages alongwith other benefits for the period of unemployment vide order dated 20.8.1999, Annexure-7 to the writ petition. This order further mentions that she would be entitled to all consequential benefits such as salary as well as new pay scale, annual increments, gratuity, insurance PF including bank contribution. By another order dated 31.3.2006, the services of the petitioner were regularised in view of the letter of the Cooperative Institutional Services Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) dated 5.4.2003, Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Thereafter, when the petitioner claimed the benefits of annual increment as claimed in the writ petition, a recommendation was also made on 1.5.2017, Annexure-15 to the writ petition, by the Joint Commissioner and Joint Registrar, Cooperative, Varanasi Division. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. Thereafter, when the petitioner claimed the benefits of annual increment as claimed in the writ petition, a recommendation was also made on 1.5.2017, Annexure-15 to the writ petition, by the Joint Commissioner and Joint Registrar, Cooperative, Varanasi Division. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it is stated that the relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition can be granted to her only if the same is approved by the Board and reference has also been made to a letter dated 23.10.2013 of the Board raising a query as to whether the appointment of the petitioner has been made after obtaining approval of the Board and if not, then how the appointment on compassionate ground was given to her. Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the services of the petitioner stood regularised under the letter of the Board dated 5.4.2003, as referred in the letter dated 31.3.2006, it cannot, at this stage after 22 years, be questioned as to whether the initial appointment of the petitioner in 1995 was made with the approval of the Board. Sri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, however, sought to justify the order dated 1.5.2017 but at the same time has submitted that the matter has been referred to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for giving appropriate directions in the matter. 4. Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel representing the Board, on the other hand, submitted that at the time when the petitioner was given appointment and at the time when her services were terminated and thereafter, reinstated, no sanction had been taken from the Board. He also referred to the letter of the Board dated 5.4.2003 and submitted that since sanction for regularisation has already been granted, the question of raising any objection or question with regard to appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground would not arise at this stage after 22 years and infact whatever payment has to be made to the petitioner is to be made by the respondent-bank itself and unnecessarily the matter is being thrust into the lap of the Board under the pretence that it is the Board who has to take the decision. 5. 5. Sri D.P. Singh, learned counsel has referred to the U.P. Co-operatives Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975 and submitted that appointments in the Cooperative Society is made under Regulation 5 through a process of selection by the Selection Committee and under Regulation 5 (v) such appointment shall be subject to the approval of the Board and all appointments shall be made only with the approval of the Board. Regulation 5 and 5(v) read as under : “5. Recruitment—Recruitment for all appointments in a co-operative society shall be made through the Board whether the recruitment is- (a) direct; or (b) already in the service of the society; or (c) by taking on deputation or otherwise, person already in the service of another society or deemed to have been registered under the Act or a member of the centralised service constituted under the Act or a person in employment under a corporation an undertaking owned or controlled by the Central or the State Government body corporate administering a local fund. (ii).......... (iii)......... (iv)......... (v) Selection made by the Selection Committee referred to in clause (v) shall be subject to the approval of the Board and appointments shall be made after the approval of the Board.” 6. Reference has also been made to Regulation 15 (i) and he submits that Regulation 15(i) is in the nature of a non-obstante clause and states that no appointment shall be made except for appointment made under the Regulations hereinbefore and no appointment under Regulation 5 shall be made except of the candidates and in the order mentioned in the list communicated by the Board. Regulation 15(i) reads as under : “15. (i) No appointment shall be made except in the manner provided for in the Regulations hereinbefore. Where recruitment through or with the approval of the Board is provided for in Regulation No. 5, no appointment shall be made except of the candidate and in the order mentioned in the list communicated by the Board. 7. (i) No appointment shall be made except in the manner provided for in the Regulations hereinbefore. Where recruitment through or with the approval of the Board is provided for in Regulation No. 5, no appointment shall be made except of the candidate and in the order mentioned in the list communicated by the Board. 7. Reference has also been made to Regulation 104 which provides for recruitment of dependents of employees dying in harness and submits that such appointment shall be given to one member of the family of the deceased employee which is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Cooperation or an undertaking owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government and such appointment on the making of an application shall be given under the Society concerned provided the member possesses the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post and is otherwise fit for appointment. He further submits that Regulation 104 (v) provides that all such appointments shall be referred to the Board by the appointing society to dispense with the procedural requirements of selection such as written test or interview by a selection committee and accord its approval to the appointment of the candidates after satisfying itself that the candidate will be able to maintain the minimum standards of efficiency expected of him for the post in question. Regulation 104 and 104 (v) read as under : “104. Recruitment of dependents of employees dying in harness.—(i) In case an employee of Co-operative Society, who is either permanent in his appointment or if temporary, who has been recruited in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975 and has been holding his post for a minimum continuous period of three years this in harness after the commencement of these Regulations, one member of his family, who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation or an undertaking owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, shall on making an application for the purpose, be given a suitable employment under the society concerned provided such member possesses the minimum educational qualifications prescribed for the post and is otherwise fit for appointment thereto. Such employment shall be given to the said member without delay and as far as possible, under the same society in which the deceased servant was employed at the time of his death. (ii)........... (iii)....... (iv)....... (v) Where more than one members of the family of the deceased employee, seek employment under this regulation, the Board shall decide, keeping in view the overall interest of the family of the deceased employee, particularly the widow and the minor members thereof, which of the members should be given employment under the provisions of this regulation. The decision of the Board in the matter shall be final.” 8. From the facts of the present case and a bare reading of the Regulation, what emerges is that the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground in 1995 and her services were terminated in the year 1998 and thereafter, she was reinstated in service and her service was also regularised under the letter and directions of the Board dated 5.4.2003 and, thereafter, she has also been granted increments and all other benefits and therefore, all that she is now asking for is annual increments and therefore, at this stage, in my opinion, annual increments cannot be denied to her on the pretentious ground that the power to do so vests in the institutional Board. The Regulation 5 referred to by Sri D.P. Singh, speaks of recruitment to be made by a Selection Committee and the consequential approval to be granted by the Board. Regulation 15 also refers to recruitment made under Regulation 5. Since the appointment of the petitioner is on compassionate ground and was not a recruitment by adopting the procedure as contemplated in Regulation 5 or 15, therefore, the said regulation has absolutely no application to the appointment of the petitioner and therefore, the question of approval of the Board in the matter of the appointment of the petitioner with regard to adoption of procedure under Regulation 5 or 15 does not arise. 9. Regulation 104 which refers to appointment on compassionate ground no doubt requires that after the appointment is made by the Society, the matter shall be referred to the Board and the Board shall accord its approval to the appointment of the candidate after satisfying itself that the candidate possesses the minimum standard of efficiency and is otherwise fit for the post. When once the services of the petitioner have also been regularised in pursuance of the letter of the Board, the appointment of the petitioner itself on compassionate ground made in the year 1995 cannot be questioned at this stage even by the Board. Therefore, in my opinion, the question of referring the matter for its approval or decision for grant of annual increment to the petitioner was a wholly irregular procedure adopted by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Regulation 106 of the Regulations 1975 provides that the State Government or the Registrar may pass such orders not inconsistent with the Regulations as if it or he deems necessary, just and proper to remove any difficulty arising in relation to emoluments, terms and conditions of service, appointment or re-appointment, termination, dismissal or removal, deputation or merger. It has not been stated anywhere by the respondents in their counter-affidavit that they have faced any difficulty in the matter of considering grant of annual increment to the petitioner from June, 2006. The only ground for referring to the Registrar is that the decision is to be taken by the Board. Regulation 106 reads as under : “106. The State Government or the Registrar may pass such orders not inconsistent with these Regulations as it or he deems necessary just and proper to remove any difficulty arising in relation to emoluments, terms and conditions of service, appointment or re-appointment, termination, dismissal or removal, deputation or merger.” 10. Sri D.P. Singh, counsel for the respondents submits that the decision has to be taken by the Registrar. In my opinion, by operation of Regulation 106, the role of the Registrar comes into play only if there is a difficulty in the matter or in relation to emoluments, terms and conditions of service etc. as outlined in Regulation 106 and unless the respondents disclose what is the difficulty faced by them, the role of the Registrar does not come into play at all. It is the respondents other than respondent No. 2 who should have taken a decision with regard to grant of annual increment to the petitioner instead of referring it to the Registrar. 11. It is the respondents other than respondent No. 2 who should have taken a decision with regard to grant of annual increment to the petitioner instead of referring it to the Registrar. 11. Sri D.P. Singh sought to clarify the letter dated 31.3.2006, Annexure-8 to the writ petition by submitting that the Institutional Board has implemented the Rules regarding direct appointment for regularization of Adhoc employees vide its letter dated 5.4.2003 and it is in pursuance thereof that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had regularized the services of the petitioner. The same letter also shows that it has been referred to the Secretary, U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow. The question is what was the Institutional Board doing from 31.2.2006 till date. If the Institutional Board had not taken any decision as per the Regulations then the fault cannot be laid at the door of the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on that account. It is sheer negligence and apathy and inactivity on the part of the Institutional Board which has failed to perform its statutory duty to take a decision on matters which are referred to it and it is not open for the Institutional Board now to wake up from a deep slumber and start questioning the appointment of the petitioner which was made in the year 1995. The petitioner was given appointment on compassionate grounds having regard to the financial difficulties being faced by the family of the deceased bread winner of the family and the same cannot be questioned now after 23 years. 12. For reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondent No. 2-Secretary/Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Bank Limited, Jaunpur to grant the reliefs claimed in the writ petition in terms of the letter dated 1.5.2017 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.