Anil Kumar [email protected] vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4617 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2255 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar [email protected]
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sameer Ranjan,Ashutosh Mishra,Raj Kumar Kesari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narayan Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.N. Mishra appearing for the respondents.

This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner-cum-Assistant Registrar, Cooperative, Saharanpur, dated 25.1.2020 holding that no appeal lies before him and as the petitioner is otherwise Accountant in a Primary Cooperative Society, therefore, the Assistant Registrar cannot pass any order in the matter. The petitioner is basically aggrieved by an order of removal passed by the Managing Director, Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Ganchhedi, Saharanpur.

While entertaining the writ petition, following orders were passed on 10.2.2021:-

"It is pointed out on behalf of respondents that petitioner is an employee of the Society, and therefore, a writ petition would not lie in the matter, in view of the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Bihari Srivastava Vs. U.P. Postal Primary Cooperative Bank Ltd., (2002 (5) AWC 308).

Learned counsel for the petitioner requires time to examine the matter.

Put up as fresh on 25.2.2021."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the provisions of the U.P. Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society (PACS) Service Regulations, 2020, which has been notified on 31st July, 2020 under Section 121 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. It is contended that an accountant is now a member of the service created, and therefore, the orders impugned are bad in law.

Though statutory service regulations have now been framed but these regulations cannot be given a retrospective effect. Admittedly the orders impugned against the petitioner has been passed much prior to coming into existence of the notification dated 31.7.2020. The order impugned of the Assistant Registrar would not become invalid in law, merely because subsequent statutory service regulations came into existence. The service conditions of petitioner were not governed by any statutory service rule and the society otherwise does not fall within the definition of 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Bihari Srivastava Vs. U.P. Postal Primary Cooperative Bank Ltd., (2002 (5) AWC 308), this petition therefore has to be held as not maintainable.

Notwithstanding the above it would, however, be appropriate to observe that since the orders against the petitioner have been passed by the authorities of the society created under the Act of 1965, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the Registrar in terms of Section 128 of the Act of 1965 and it goes without saying that such representation shall be dealt with by the Registrar, in accordance with law, expeditiously.

Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is consigned to records.

Order Date :- 25.3.2021

Anil