Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 130 (MP)

Bhagwandas Goswami v. State Of M. P. And Others

2020-01-23

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2020
JUDGMENT S A Dharmadhikari, J. - In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- "i. That, the respondents may kindly be directed to make payment of retiral dues like Gratuity, Payment of GPF, Group Insurance on account of his entire service in the establishment of respondent No.4 society alongwith interest @12 percent per annum in the interest of justice. ii That, respondent may kindly be directed to make payment of difference of salary w.e.f. 06/12/1982 looking to the effect of decision taken by the Committee and approval given by the Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar, Co-operative society, Gwalior for making the payment of salary in the pay scale existing in the B-Grade Bank Employee under the Service Rules of 1982. iii. Respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to dispose of the appeal pending before him w.e.f. 1991-1992 filed by the respondent No.4 Society looking to the fact that the petitioner has already service his service under the establishment of respondent No.4 society and now has been retired on attaining the age of superannuation." 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Samiti Prabandhak in the establishment of respondent No.4/Society on 11/03/1977 (Annexure P/1). The respondent No.4/Society took a decision to grant the pay scale payable to "B" Grade Bank employee to the petitioner vide letter dated 22/10/1982. On 03/12/1982, the Deputy Registrar, being a Registrar of such society approved the decision of the society and petitioner's services were terminated without holding any enquiry and without extending any opportunity of hearing vide order dated 10/01/1986. However, respondent No.4 had stopped the payment of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 01/11/1983. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a service dispute under Section 55(2) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as " the Act") claiming payment of withheld salary. But later on, since the petitioner was terminated, he amended the petition challenging the termination order and for direction to re-instate the petitioner in service with full back wages. The said petition was allowed after hearing both the parties. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages w.e.f. 01/11/1983 vide order dated 16/07/1990 (Annexure P/2). The petitioner was reinstated back in service. The said petition was allowed after hearing both the parties. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages w.e.f. 01/11/1983 vide order dated 16/07/1990 (Annexure P/2). The petitioner was reinstated back in service. He submitted letter dated 22/11/1991 before the Assistant Registrar to comply with the previous decision of the society to make the payment of salary payable to "B" Grade employee of the Bank for which Assistant Registrar had also given its stamp of approval. Respondent No.4 again sought clarification from the Assistant Registrar as to whether payment of salary as claimed by the petitioner is to be paid or not? The Assistant Registrar vide Annexure P/12 again directed them for fixing the pay of the petitioner as per earlier decision. 3. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.4/Society filed an appeal on 23/07/1992 before the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Gwalior which was allowed and order of Assistant Registrar was set- aside vide order dated 21/07/1992 (Annexure P/3). Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue against the order passed by the Joint Registrar, in which the Board of Revenue vide order dated 16/09/1992 (Annexure P/4) stayed the effect and operation of the order passed by the Joint Registrar with clear observation that all benefits which were available to the petitioner as on 27/07/1992 be given to him. Again aggrieved, the respondent No.4/Society challenged the order of Board of Revenue by filing Misc. Petition No.1444/1991 before this Court challenging the interim relief granted by the Board of Revenue to the petitioner. The said petition was disposed of finally vide order dated 23/08/1991 with a direction to the Joint Registrar to decide the appeal within a period of two months with further stipulation that the petitioner shall continue in service and shall be entitled to get Rs.5,000/- per month as a part of back wages. The respondent No.4, in compliance of the order dated 23/08/1991, paid part of the back wages to the petitioner till disposal of the second appeal pending before the Board of Revenue. Vide order dated 20/07/1993, the Board of Revenue allowed the second appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order of the Assistant Registrar by which the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated back in service with full back wages. 4. Vide order dated 20/07/1993, the Board of Revenue allowed the second appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order of the Assistant Registrar by which the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated back in service with full back wages. 4. Respondent No.4, challenged the order dated 20/07/1993 before this Court in MP No.1151/1993 which was finally disposed of vide order dated 11/08/1993 by setting aside both the orders passed by Joint Registrar (Annexure P/3) as well as order passed by Board of Revenue (Annexure P/6) with the direction to the Joint Registrar to decide the appeal filed by the respondent/Society afresh. Both the parties were directed to appear before the Joint Registrar on 25/08/1993 and it was clarified that petitioner shall be entitled to work and take the benefits of the order of trial Court i.e. Assistant Registrar dated 16/07/1990. In compliance of the same, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages. 5. On 25/08/1993, petitioner filed an application before the joint Registrar Gwalior in pending appeal in terms of the direction issued by this Court to make the payment of salary after making fixation in "B" Grade pay scale payable to Bank employee. The said application was not decided and respondent No.4/Society forcibly retired the petitioner intentionally on the ground that his services are no longer required vide order dated 30/12/2000. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order of pre-mature retirement before this Court in WP No.458/2001 and this Court passed the following order:- "17.05.2001 Petitioner by Shri C.S. Dixit, Advocate. Heard on admission. Issue notice to respondents on payment of process fee within three days. Respondents No.5 and 6 are directed to comply with the order passed by this Court in Misc. Petition No. 1151/1993, decided on 11.08.1993. Since the appeal is pending before the Joint Registrar, therefore, till decision of the appeal the petitioner should be allowed to continue in service. The order, Annexure P/1, is vague. At one place it is mentioned that the services are no longer required and thereafter the petitioner has been retired from service. The order itself is inconsistent. Therefore, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 should also explain why the proceedings for contempt be not initiated against them and they should not be punished for violating the order of this Court, passed in Misc. Petition No. 1151/93, decided on 11.08.1993. Certified copy as per rules." 6. The order itself is inconsistent. Therefore, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 should also explain why the proceedings for contempt be not initiated against them and they should not be punished for violating the order of this Court, passed in Misc. Petition No. 1151/93, decided on 11.08.1993. Certified copy as per rules." 6. In compliance of the order dated 17/05/2001, respondent No.4/Society recalled its order vide order dated 01/06/2001 (Annexure P/16) by which the petitioner was pre maturely retired and he was permitted to join the duties with clear understanding that he would be entitled for all the consequential benefits of service. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner was retired from service as per Rule 72 (1) of the Bank Seva Niyam vide order dated 28/02/2007 (Annexure P/17). 7. Since the respondent No.4/Society did not make the payment as per revised fixation of pay and salary as decided by Society and approved by Registrar alongwith all retiral due including all consequential benefits and interest thereon, a legal notice dated 08/06/2007 was sent but the same had fallen on deaf ears and was never responded by the respondents. However, respondent No.4, in its return, filed in this case, took a plea that one criminal case was registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.41/1986 and the petitioner was enlarged on bail, therefore, he is not entitled to get any benefit. However, learned trial Court in S.T. No.2426/2007 vide order dated 24/07/2012 (Annexure P/20) acquitted the petitioner from all the charges on merit. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in spite of specific orders passed by various courts including this Hon'ble Court, respondent No.4/Society has not released retiral dues as admissible to the petitioner, the consequential benefits flowing from retirement as well as interest on outstanding dues for which the petitioner is legally entitled. In such circumstances, the respondent No.4 be directed to release the retiral dues of the petitioner alongwith interest forthwith. 9. Per contra, Shri Vivek Khedkar appearing for respondent No.4/Society, by filing reply, contended that so far as relief is concerned, the petitioner did not file any document to bolster his contention that he has been declared as permanent employee of the society. Even otherwise, respondent No.4/Society is solely governed by its bye-laws and the provisions of the Act. The rules do not provide for appointment of the employee. Even otherwise, respondent No.4/Society is solely governed by its bye-laws and the provisions of the Act. The rules do not provide for appointment of the employee. The petitioner was engaged in the Society on the post of Assistant Manager on fixed pay and there were no Rules or Regulations provided for grant of GPF, Gratuity and Group Insurance, hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Moreover, the petitioner was terminated from service on account of misappropriation of funds amounting to Rs.93,307,63/- during the years 1982-83 and 1983-84. This aspect was not brought to the notice of the Courts and Assistant Registrar and even this Court, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Admittedly, according to the resolution dated 22/10/1982 (Annexure P/8), decision was taken by the respondent No.4/Society itself to grant the pay scale of "B" Grade Bank employee to the petitioner. It was decided to grant the pay scale since the petitioner was working for the last five years continuously, the decision was sent for approval for Assistant Registrar. The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society, Gwalior vide order dated 03/12/1982 (Annexure P/9) approved the decision dated 20/10/1982. Vide order dated 20/11/1991, Registrar who is the competent authority to issue direction, had directed the president of respondent No.4/society to pay the salary to the petitioner, therefore, the contention advanced by the counsel for the respondent No.4/society that the petitioner did not file any document to bolster his contention, is highly misconceived. Earlier the termination order was set-aside vide order dated 16/07/1990 (Annexure P/2) by the Registrar under Section 55(2) of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service. The reinstatement was subjected to scrutiny before the Joint Registrar and matter traveled up to this Court. This Court, vide order dated 23/08/1991 (Annexure P/5) had specifically directed the respondent No.4/Society to reinstate the petitioner and pay the back wages but again the petitioner was terminated. This Court vide order dated 17/05/2001 passed in writ petition No.458/2001, called for the explanation from the respondent No.4/Society as to why the proceedings for contempt be not initiated against them and they should not be punished for violating the order of this Court. As a result, the petitioner was again reinstated. This Court vide order dated 17/05/2001 passed in writ petition No.458/2001, called for the explanation from the respondent No.4/Society as to why the proceedings for contempt be not initiated against them and they should not be punished for violating the order of this Court. As a result, the petitioner was again reinstated. The respondent No.4 itself has considered its mistake vide order dated 17/06/2001. Moreover, the petitioner has been acquitted from all the criminal charges as it is evident from Annexure P/20. The petitioner was retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent No.4 itself issued NOC to show that no dues are in existence which is evident from Annexure P/19. 12. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition stands allowed. The respondent No.4/society is directed to make payment of retiral dues like Gratuity, GPF, Group Insurance and also difference of salary w.e.f. 06/12/1982 taking into consideration the decision taken by the Committee and approval thereof by the Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies by fixing the pay scale in the "B" Grade according to the service rules. Since the petitioner was made to run from pillar to post claiming retiral dues, fixation of the salary and other consequential benefits, respondent No.4/society is directed to pay the interest at the rate of 8% per annum w.e.f. his superannuation i.e 06/12/1982 till actual payment as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. No order as to costs.