Co-Operative Cane Development ... vs Digvijay Singh And 3 Ors.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2295 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 1
 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 262 of 2018
 
Appellant :- Co-Operative Cane Development Union Ltd.Bijnor Thru Secy.
 
Respondent :- Digvijay Singh And 3 Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Paramanand Asthana
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Ajai Kumar Pandey,Yogendra Mishra
 
Connected with
 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 264 of 2018
 
Appellant :- Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd.Dhampur Thru Secy.
 
Respondent :- Khemendra Singh And Ors
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Paramanand Asthana
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Yogendra Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

(1) The above-captioned intra Court appeals have been filed beyond 5 months and 3 days.

(2) Shri Yogendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1/writ petitioners has no objection in case delay in filing the above-captioned appeals be condoned and be heard finally today itself.

(3) Since cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay in the above-captioned appeals is satisfactory, application for condonation of delay in filing the above-captioned appeals are allowed. Delay in filing the aforesaid appeals is condoned.

(4) The above-captioned special appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 20.11.2017 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Service Single No. 1536 of 2014 : Khemendra Singh Vs. State Cane Service Authority and others and Service Single No. 1528 of 2014 :Digvijay Singh Vs. State Cane Service Authority, Lucknow and others.

(5) Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1/writ petitioners were working on the post of Seasonal Clerks in Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd., Dhampur, Bijnor and while working as such, punishment order was passed on 09.07.2003 against the respondent no.1/writ petitioners, placing them under category ''B'. Aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment order dated 09.07.2003, respondent no.1/writ petitioner filed appeal, which was rejected by means of the order dated 08.01.2004.

(6) The respondent no.1 (Kshemendra Singh) in Special Appeal Defective No. 262 of 2018 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2699 of 2004, whereas respondent no.1 (Digvijay Singh) in Special Appeal Defective No.264 of 2018 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2697 of 2004, challenging the aforesaid punishment order dated 09.07.2003 as well as appellate order dated 08.01.2004. Hon'ble Single Judge, vide common judgment and order dated 11.11.2005, allowed the aforesaid writ petitions and quashed the punishment order dated 09.07.2003 and appellate order dated 08.01.2004, inter alia on the grounds that enquiry was not held in a proper manner and appropriate opportunity of hearing was not provided to the writ petitioners. It was also directed by Hon'ble Single Judge that Cane Commissioner will issue appropriate orders for conducting enquiry by an appropriate authority in the matter.

(7) Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order dated 11.11.2005, an enquiry Committee was constituted, however, at that time, it was found that relevant record was lost and as such, no further enquiry was possible against the writ petitioners, hence a report was submitted in this regard on 18.02.2006, by which enquiry was dropped against the writ petitioners.

(8) It appears that respondent no.1/writ petitioners moved application regarding payment of dues and other service benefits for the period they were placed in Category ''B' by way of punishment, which claim was rejected by the Regional Cane Service Authority vide order dated 08.03.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioners/respondent no.1 filed appeal. During the said proceedings, the writ petitioners/respondent no.1 were required to file an affidavit to the effect that they were not claiming salary for the period for which they were out of job and they were entitled for other benefits except for salary of the said period. An affidavit to the aforesaid effect was submitted by the writ petitioners, which was accepted by the appellants herein. However, by the order dated 01.07.2013, the aforesaid appeal preferred by the respondent no.1/writ petitioners were rejected.

(9) Against the aforesaid order dated 01.07.2013, respondent no.1/writ petitioner (Kshemendra Singh) filed Writ Petition Service Single No. 1536 of 2014, whereas respondent no.1/writ petitioner (Digvijay Singh) filed Writ Petition Service Single No. 1528 of 2014. The Hon'ble Single Judge had heard the aforesaid writ petitions together and by means of a common judgment and order dated 20.11.2017, disposed of the aforesaid writ petition by modifying the aforesaid order dated 01.07.2013 to the extent that the same would not impact continuity in service of writ petitioners and writ petitioners would be entitled for future promotions as well as retiral dues including increments and other consequential benefits thereby treating them in continuous service.

(10) The learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to Regulation-34 of the Uttar Pradesh Cane Co-operative Service Regulation, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ''Regulation, 1975') and has submitted that under Regulation-34 of the Regulation, 1975, the service of the seasonal staff automatically comes to an end at the end of each crushing season. Regulation 34 further provides that service of seasonal employee can be terminated by recruiting or appointing authority at any time on a week's notice or with a week's salary in lieu thereof. He submits that when the Regulation, 1975 itself provides for automatic termination of service at the end of each crushing season and re-employment at the start of each crushing season, the impugned judgment and order dated 20.11.2017, by which Hon'ble Single Judge modified the order dated 01.07.2013, impugned in the writ petitions by providing continuity to service to the petitioners, is contrary to Regulation 34 of Regulation, 1975. His submission is that since the respondent no.1/writ petitioners were not engaged/re-employed w.e.f. 09.07.2003 to 21.02.2006, they are not entitled for counting that period for future promotion or retiral dues etc. Therefore, the impugned order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge is liable to be set-aside.

(11) Refuting the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants, Shri Yogendra Misra, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1/writ petitioners has submitted that perusal of the order dated 01.07.2013 impugned in the writ petitions reveals that the department/appellants would deny continuity in service for future promotions and retiral benefits of the respondent no.1/writ petitioners. He argued that during pendency of the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1/writ petitioners against the order dated 08.03.2007, they submitted an affidavit, specifically stated therein that they are surrendering their claim only with regard to salary for the period for which they had not worked and claim entitlement of rest of the benefits. He submits that order dated 01.07.2013 impugned in the writ petitions are absolutely silent regarding rest of the benefits to which writ petitioners are entitled too and as such, Hon'ble Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, recorded specific finding that there is no denial of the said benefits in the order impugned in the writ petitions and even respondents (appellants herein) could not dispute the same. His submission is that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge and the special appeals are liable to be dismissed.

(12) We have examined the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment as well as material brought on record.

(13) At the outset, it required to be noted here that service conditions of the respondent no.1/writ petitioners are governed by statutory regulations, known as Uttar Pradesh Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975, which have been notified in the U.P Gazette on 18th October, 1975. Chapter V of the Regulations, 1975 provides for categorization of entire seasonal staff into Categories ''A' and ''B', on the basis of their work and worth during the season. Regulations 21 and 22 of the Regulations, 1975 are reproduced as under :-

21. At the end of each crushing season the Secretary of the Cane Union shall classify the entire seasonal staff into A' and 'B' categories on the basis of their work and worth during the season. Such persons of unquestionable integrity and who have discharged the or duties efficiently during the crushing season shall be placed in 'A' category and the rest in category 'B'. When seasonal employee is placed in a category 'B' he will be informed of the same together with the grounds for his categorisation and an opportunity shall be given to him to explain the charges and deficiencies against him. These proceedings shall be of summary nature and shall be conducted by the Secretary of the Union concerned.

22. The Secretary shall put that category-wise lists of the seasonal staff before the Committee of Management of the union for approval. In case of the list of the category 'B' staff he shall also put up the charges, explanation of the employees concerned and his findings thereon for consideration of the Committee of Management. If in any case the committee disagrees with the findings of the Secretary it may in that case alter the category from 'B' to 'A'. Thereafter the original lists including the alteration if any, ordered by the Committee of management shall be declared final and posted on the notice board of the union duly signed by the Chairman of the meeting and the Secretary.

(14) A perusal of the aforesaid Regulations reveals that persons possessing unquestionable integrity having discharged their duties efficiently during the crushing season are to be placed in Category ''A', whereas all other staff is required to be placed in Category ''B'.

(15) Regulation 26 of Regulation 1975 provides for automatic re-employment in the next season of the seasonal staff placed in Category ''A'. Regulation 26 of the Regulations of 1975 is reproduced :-

"26. The staff placed in category "A" shall be automatically re-employed in the next season unless the strength of seasonal staff re-determined under the Regulation 13, has been reduced in any particular year to such an extent that it may not be possible to re-employ all such staff and further such re-employment shall also be depend on the availability of work and financial conditions of the institution concern, during the crushing season"

(16) The words ''crushing season' have been defined in sub-clause (n) of Clause (2) of the Regulation, 1975, which means the period commencing from the date when crushing of sugarcane in concerned sugar factories commences till the date when crushing ends.

(17) Regulation 34 dealt with the termination of service of a seasonal employee. Regulation 34 provides that the service of a seasonal employee may be terminated by the recruiting or appointing authority at any time on a week's notice or with a week's salary in lieu thereof. This provision shall not apply in case of termination as a result of disciplinary proceedings or termination at the close of the crushing season.

(18) In the instant case, it is not in dispute that respondent no.1/writ petitioner-Digvijay Singh and respondent no.1/writ petitioner Khemendra Singh were appointed as Seasonal Clerk in Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd., Dhampur, Bijnor since 23.01.1991 and since 1998, respectively. While working in the aforesaid capacity, an order of punishment dated 09.07.2003 was passed, placing them under Category ''B', which was challenged by them in appeal, however, the appellate authority had rejected their appeal vide order dated 08.01.2004. Both the aforesaid orders dated 09.07.2003 and 08.01.2004 were assailed by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner-Kshemendra Singh in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2699 of 2004 and respondent no.1/writ petitioner-Digvijay Singh in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2697 of 2004. Hon'ble Single Judge, vide common judgment and order dated 11.11.2005, allowed the aforesaid writ petitions and quashed the aforesaid punishment order dated 09.07.2003 as well as appellate order dated 08.01.2004 and further directed the Cane Commissioner to issue appropriate orders for conducting enquiry by an appropriate authority in the matter within time bound frame.

(19) Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 11.11.2005, respondent no.1/writ petitioners were reinstated in service and a direction was issued to make fresh detailed enquiry into the matter. The Enquiry Officer, after due enquiry, had submitted its report dated 18.02.2006, stating therein that relevant record was lost and as such, further enquiry was not possible against the respondent no.1/writ petitioners, therefore, it was recommended to take the respondent no.1/writ petitioners in service. After that respondent no.1/writ petitioners moved application for payment of dues and other service benefits in the light of the aforesaid order dated 11.11.2005, which was rejected by means of the order dated 08.03.2007. Against this order dated 08.03.2007, the respondent no.1/writ petitioners preferred appeal. During pendency of this appeal, respondent no.1/writ petitioners were required to file an affidavit to the effect that they were not claiming salary for the period for which they were out of job and they were entitled for other benefits except for salary of said period. In pursuance thereof, an affidavit to the aforesaid effect was submitted by the respondent no.1/writ petitioners, which was accepted by the appellants herein, however, the appeals preferred by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner were rejected by means of order dated 01.07.2003, which was challenged by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner-Kshemendra Singh in Service Single No. 1536 of 2014 and by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner-Digvijay Singh in Service Single No. 1528 of 2014. Both these writ petitions were heard together and Hon'ble Single Judge found that order dated 01.07.2003, impugned in both the aforesaid writ petitions, is absolutely silent regarding rest of the benefits to which the writ petitioners are entitled and there is no denial of said benefits in the order dated 01.07.2003 and even appellants herein could not dispute the same. In this backdrop, Hon'ble Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions by means of order dated 20.11.2017, modifying the order dated 01.07.2013 to the extent that the order dated 01.07.2013 would not impact continuity in service of writ petitioners and writ petitioners would be entitled for future promotions as well as retiral dues including increments and other consequential benefits thereby treating petitioners in continuous service.

(20) A perusal of the Regulation 34 of Regulations, 1975, as reproduced hereinabove, clearly stipulates that this provision relating to termination of service of a seasonal employee shall not apply in case of termination as a result of disciplinary proceedings or termination at the close of the crushing season. In the instant case, there is no dispute to the fact that the order of termination dated 09.07.2003 by placing the respondent no.1/writ petitioners under Category ''B' was passed in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent no.1/writ petitioners. Moreso, the aforesaid punishment order dated 09.07.2003 was quashed by means of the order dated 11.11.2005 (Supra) and fresh disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent no.1/writ petitioners were dropped on account of non-availability of the relevant records. Thus, plea of the learned Counsel for appellants that the impugned order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge is contrary to Regulation 34 of Regulation, 1975, appears to be not sustainable and is, accordingly, rejected.

(21) For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge.

(22) Both the special appeals lack merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)       (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
 
Order Date :- 23.1.2023
 
Ajit/-