Allahabad High Court
Milk Producer Cooperative Union Ltd. ... vs Managing Director Pradeshik ... on 20 March, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16008-DB
Reserved
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 114 of 2025
Appellant :- Milk Producer Cooperative Union Ltd. thru. General Manager
Respondent :- Managing Director Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. and 2 others
Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Bhaseen (Sr. Adv.) with Pankaj Patel
Counsel for Respondent :- Shanker Lal, Amar Nath Dubey, C.S.C.
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.
(Per: Arun Bhansali, CJ)
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 01.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 734 of 2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and a direction has been given to the appellant to make payment of the admitted dues of the respondent as indicated in the impugned order dated 25.09.2023 / 06.10.2023 within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of the order is submitted before the concerned authority, failing which, the respondent shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it was due till the date of actual payment. The order was corrected on 16.02.2024, whereby the direction was confined to the appellant. Whereafter, the review petition filed by the appellant also came to be dismissed on 29.08.2024.
2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent, inter alia, with the submissions that he was appointed on the post of electrician on 01.01.1988 and retired from the said post on 31.01.2016. A decision was taken on 31.01.2009 for payment of benefits of promotional pay scale after completion of 19 years as well as 24 years of satisfactory services. The Chairman of the Administrative Committee also took decision on 24.10.2019 for payment of 19/24 years of service benefits. The respondent moved an application through registered post seeking the benefit, however, the same was not given. Feeling aggrieved, he filed Writ-A No.5678 of 2023, which came to be disposed of by order dated 07.08.2023, wherein the appellants were directed to decide the representation to be made by the respondent within ten days.
3. By the order impugned in the writ petition dated 25.09.2023/06.10.2023, the representation made by the respondent was disposed of inter alia holding that from the facts and evidence available on record, the present financial condition of the Milk Union, Prayagraj was too bad and looking at the losses in the previous years for providing the benefit, the Union was not in a position to bear the additional amount. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petition was filed.
4. When the writ petition came up before the Court, the learned Single Judge, noticing the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that although dues of the respondent herein are admitted but payment thereof cannot be made due to financial crunch being faced, came to the conclusion that from the perusal of order dated 25.09.2023 itself, it was quite evident that appellants have admitted the dues of the respondent but refrained from payment of the same on account of poor financial condition and that such a ground is not available to the appellant once the dues are admitted and placing reliance on judgment in Ram Raj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others Writ Petition No.922 (S/S) of 2021, allowed the petition and passed directions, as noticed hereinbefore.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that learned Single Judge, without affording opportunity to file reply to the petition, has allowed the writ petition and has passed direction for payment, which is not justified. Submissions have been made that only on account of passing of the resolution by the Milk Union dated 13.07.2021 for providing ACPs at the end of 19 and 24 years of service as was being paid to the employees of PCDF, was not sufficient for the respondent to seek payment of the amount pertaining to the said ACPs inasmuch as the said resolution was required to be approved by Milk Commissioner, which approval was specifically denied by order dated 29.09.2023, which was not under challenge in the writ petition.
6. Submissions have been made that in terms of provisions of Rule 3 (2)(b) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975 (for short 'the Regulations, 1975') read with the Government Circular dated 19.11.2012, all the financial benefits/privileges to be provided to the employees, were required to be approved by the Milk Commissioner / Registrar keeping in view the financial condition of the Milk Unions and as no such approval was granted, rather the same was refused, the respondent could not claim the grant of benefit of the ACPs at the end of 19 / 24 years.
7. Further submissions have been made that the reliance placed on the fact that the employees of Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited (PCDF) were being given the benefit, is of no avail to the respondent, as mere applicability of a particular benefit to employees of PCDF, cannot be applied to the employees of the Milk Unions. Further, each Milk Union is independent of each other in so far as their financial status / condition is concerned and it is only in case they have the financial capacity to provide the benefit, the same can be provided. The same cannot be claimed as of right and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned. Submissions were made that in the order impugned which has been passed after the directions given by this Court, no reference regarding the purported refusal dated 29.09.2023 has been made. The only indication made in the order, relates to the financial condition and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition, as lack of funds cannot be made the basis for denying the benefit.
9. Further submissions have been made that admittedly the employees of PCDF and Milk Union, Lucknow are getting the benefit and on that count, the denial by the appellant is not justified. Reliance was placed on Pradeshik Cooperative Milk Dairy Federation Vs. Rakesh Kumar Soni and 143 others : Special Appeal No.- 159 of 2016, decided on 12.09.2019.
10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
11. A perusal of the order impugned before the learned Single Judge dated 25.09.2023/06.10.2023 would reveal that the Milk Commissioner / Registrar, Milk Cooperative Societies, U.P. Lucknow, after noticing the financial condition of the Milk Union for the year 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 noted that there has been a loss of Rs. 349.10, 298.27 and 313.29 Lakhs in the three financial years respectively and came to the conclusion that the financial condition of the Milk Union was not taken into consideration while passing the resolution pertaining to the grant of ACPs at the end of 19 and 24 years' service and consequently, rejected the representation.
12. The basis for claiming the benefit of ACPs is based on the resolution dated 13.07.2021 (Annexure SA-1) annexed with supplementary affidavit dated 28.11.2024 filed by the appellant wherein resolution was passed for making payment of ACPs as was being paid to the employees of the PCDF Ltd. At the end of the minutes wherein the resolution was passed, it was specifically provided as under:-
ÞmijksDrkuqlkj vkUrfje izcU/k desVh dh mijksDr cSBd esa mifLFkr lHkkifr ,oa leLr lnL;x.k }kjk loZlEefr ls ,DliVZ iSuy ds fu.kZ;@ikfjr izLrko fnukad 24-11-2020 ij loZlEefr ls viuh lgefr iznku djrs gq, nqX/k vk;qDr ,oa fucU/kd nqX/k lgdkjh lfefr;kaW m0iz0 y[kuÅ ls lE;d izdj.k ij muds fopkjksijkUr vuqeksnu izkIr djus gsrq mijksDr izLrko Hkstus ,oa vxzsrj dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, bdkbZ izHkkjh nqX/k la?k iz;kxjkt dks vf/kd`r fd;k x;kAß
13. A perusal of the above would reveal that while passing the resolutions, it was provided that the resolutions passed in the meeting, the same be forwarded to Milk Commissioner / Registrar, Milk Cooperative Societies, U.P. Lucknow for their consideration and approval and the Unit at Milk Union, Prayagraj was authorised for the same. The said proposal passed in the meeting dated 13.07.2021, when the same came up before the Milk Commissioner wherein, after considering the financial status of the Milk Union, it was observed as under:-
ÞtSlk fd Vhi 25&26 va'k& Þdß ls Li"V gS fd nqX/k la?k foxr dbZ o"kksZ ls cM+s ?kkVs esa py jgk gS ftlds dze esa 'kklukns'k la0 1566 fnukad 19&11&12 ds n`f"Vxr laLFkk ds foRrh; fLFkfr esa lq/kkj gksus ds ckn gh fdlh lsok ykHk dk fn;k tkuk lehphu gksxkA xzsP;qVh dh lhek c<+kus dk fu.kZ; vkns'k la[;k 104&07 fnukad 24&08&21 }kjk iwoZ esa fd;k tk pqdk gSA ¼i@[k½
d`i;k vkns'kkFkZAß
14. It would be seen that reference was made to the Government Circular dated 19.11.2012 and it was observed that on account of the losses for many years, only after financial condition improves, grant of any kind of service benefit would be justified, as such, the approval was not granted. The relevant Government Circular dated 19.11.2012, inter alia, requires as under:-
ÞjkT; ljdkj }kjk vius dkfeZdksa dks le;≤ ij tks Hkh foRrh; ykHk@lqfo/kk;sa vuqeU; dh tkW; os ih0lh0Mh0,Q0 o nqX/k la?kksa esa Lor% ykxw u gksdj mudh foRrh; fLFkfr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, nqX/k vk;qDr@fucU/kd Lrj ls vuqeU; djk;h tk;sAÞ
15. The Government Circular clearly provides that the benefits would not be applicable automatically and keeping in view the financial condition after seeking approval of the Milk Commissioner / Registrar, the same be applied.
16. In the present case, despite passing of the resolution by the Milk Union on 13.07.2021, there has been no approval by the Milk Commissioner / Registrar.
17. Besides the above, the provisions of Rule 3(2)(b) of the Regulations, 1975, inter alia, provides that enhancement of pay scale may be made by the Society only after approval of the Registrar, has been obtained.
18. In view thereof, as the resolution passed applying the ACPs at the end of 19 years and 24 years' service, itself is not enforceable, the direction given by the learned Single Judge for making payment, irrespective of the financial condition, cannot be sustained.
19. So far as the judgement in the case of Pradeshik Cooperative Milk Dairy Federation (supra) is concerned, from a perusal of the same, it is revealed that the same pertains to PCDF and therein also, the approval was granted by the Registrar on 28.01.2009 and as the same became enforceable, the plea of non-availability of funds was negated by the Court, which is not the status in the present case, wherein the crucial approval for grant of ACPs at the end of 19 years and 24 years is missing.
20. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by learned Single Judge dated 01.02.2024 is set aside. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20-03-2025
SL
(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
