Allahabad High Court
Man Singh vs State Of U.P. And 6 Ors. on 12 September, 2016
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. - 25
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43340 of 2016
Petitioner :- Man Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Niraj Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sujit Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Niraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 and Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondent no.2, i.e. Registrar, Co-operative Society, U.P. Lucknow to ensure the payment of arrears of salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.10.1995 to 31.1.2016 with interest @ 12% per annum. Further relief has been sought that the respondent no.2 should be directed to provide the fund to ensure that huge dues are paid.
Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that as per own allegation of the petitioner he was an employee of Sadhan Sahakari Samiti, Lakhua Pakar, Block-Belghat, District Gorakhpur. His appointment was approved by the District Assistant Registrar, respondent no.5 as per provision of Section 120/121 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
The grievance of the petitioner is that his salary has not been paid by the society, namely, Sadhan Sahakari Samiti, Lakhua Pakar, Block-Belghat, District Gorakhpur. Consequently, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent no.2 for payment of his salary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since approval of his appointment as an employee of the respondent no.7 was granted by the respondent no.5 vide order dated 1.6.1982 with reference to the provisions of Section 120 and 121 of the Act and as such respondent nos.2 and 5 are liable for payment of salary and arrears of salary of the petitioner and consequently a writ of mandamus may be issued to the respondent no.2 to ensure payment of arrears of the salary of the petitioner.
Sri Sujeet Kumar and the learned standing counsel jointly submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and the entire submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are wholly misconceived inasmush as the respondent no.7, Cooperative Society is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. They further submit that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent no.7 and mere approval of his appointment granted by the respondent No.5 under the Regulatory Provisions of Section 120 or 121 of the Act shall not make him an employee of the State Government.
They further submit that the petitioner was neither appointed by the State respondents nor the State respondents are liable for payment of the salary of the petitioner.
I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
As per own allegations of the petitioner in paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition he was appointed as Salesman/Account Clerk in Sadhan Sahakari Samiti, Lakhua Pakar, Block-Belghat, District Gorakhpur on 13.12.1979 by the respondent no.7 and approval of his appointment under Section 120 of the Act was granted by the respondent no. 5 vide order dated 1.6.1982.
Section 120 of the Act reads as under:
120 Qualifications for appointment as Secretary, manager etc. of cooperative societies.- (1) No person shall be appointed by a cooperative society as secretary, manager, accountant or as any other officer to be paid or remunerated by the society unless he possesses such qualifications and furnishes such security, if any, as may be specified by the Registrar from time to time in respect of any co-operative society or class of societies.
(2) Any person appointed in contravention of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) shall be liable to removal from his office by the Registrar.
Apparently, the Provisions of Section 120 of the Act provides for appointment of a person by a Co-operative Society as a Secretary, Manager, Accountant or as any other officer to be paid or remunerated by the society provided he possess such qualification and furnishes such security, if any, as may be specified by the Registrar from time to time in respect of any co-operative society or class of societies and in case any person is appointed in contravention of the provisions of Section 120(1) of the Act then he shall be liable to be removed from the office by the Registrar. Thus provisions of Section 120 clearly provides that a Co-operative Society may appoint any person as Secretary, Manager, Accountant or as any other officer unless he possess such qualification and furnishes such security, if any, as may be specified by the Registrar. Provisions itself makes it clear that the appointment shall be made by the co-operative society and payment of salary or remuneration of the appointed person shall also be paid by the Society. The appointment of the petitioner has not been made by the respondent no.2, 3 or 5.
Under the circumstances, I find that the entire relief sought by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. No provision could be shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner despite being asked that under which provision the State respondents are liable for payment of salary of the petitioner who claims himself to be an employee of Sadhan Sahakari Samiti, Lakhua Pakar, Block-Belghat, District Gorakhpur.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance in the present writ petition. Writ petition is wholly devoid of substance and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with costs.
In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Legal Cell Authority, High Court, Allahabad, within two weeks.
Order Date :- 12.9.2016/vkg
