Bombay High Court
Chamorshi Agriculture Produce ... vs The ... on 24 August, 2017
Bench: S.C. Gupte
Judgment 1 wp2645.00.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2645 OF 2000
Chamorshi Agriculture Produce Market
Committee, through its Chairman,
Taluka : Chamorshi, District : Gadchiroli.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. The Joint Director of Marketing
Maharashtra State, Pune.
2. District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies,
Gadchiroli, Taluka and
District : Gadchiroli.
3. Gadchiroli Agriculture Produce
Market Committee, Taluka and
District : Gadchiroli.
4. Shri Sudhakar Bhauji Zade,
C/o. Motiramji Suryawanshi,
Near Co-operative Rice Mill,
Ward No.6, Gadchiroli,
District : Gadchiroli.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri G.G.Mishra, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri V.P.Maldhure, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Shri S.R.Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Shri V.N.Morande, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.
DATED : AUGUST 24, 2017.
Judgment 2 wp2645.00.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The subject matter of this petition is an order passed by Joint
Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State on 7 th April, 2000 in an appeal filed
under Section 52-B of the Agriculture Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act,
1963.
3. The facts of the case are briefly noted as follows:
Respondent No.3 to this petition is Gadchiroli Agricultural
Produce Market Committee. On 4th February, 1999 this market committee
came to be bifurcated into two separate market committees, namely,
Chamorshi Agricultural Produce Market Committee (petitioner herein) and
Gadchiroli Agricultural Produce Market Committee (respondent No.3
herein). On this date, respondent No.4 was working with original Gadchiroli
market committee. By an order dated 2 nd June, 1999, District Deputy
Registrar, Gadchiroli bifurcated the properties, liabilities and other
obligations as well as employees between Chamorshi Agricultural Produce
Market Committee and Gadchiroli Agricultural Produce Market Committee.
By an order dated 25th June, 1999, respondent No.4 herein along with three
other employees, was relieved by the District Deputy Registrar and allotted to
Chamorshi market committee. This allotment was contested by Chamorshi
Judgment 3 wp2645.00.odt
market committee by an application dated 30 th June, 1999. On this
application the District Deputy Registrar modified his earlier order dated 2 nd
June, 1999 and directed that respondent No.4 should join Gadchiroli market
committee. That was on 3rd July, 1999. On 3rd March, 2000, this
modification was contested by respondent No.4 in an appeal before the Joint
Director of Marketing under Section 52-B of the Act. On 7 th April, 2000, the
Joint Director allowed this appeal and allotted the services of respondent
No.4 to Chamorshi Market Committee. The Joint Director also directed
Chamorshi market committee to pay arrears of salary to respondent No.4
along with interest. That order is challenged by Chamorshi market
committee in the instant petition.
4. Before we come to the operative order that may have to be
passed in the present petition, a few events which transpired after the
impugned order and during the pendency of the present petition need to be
noted.
5. In pursuance of the order dated 7 th April, 2000, Chamorshi
market committee refused to allow respondent No.4 to join duties despite the
fact that he reported to the committee. Instead Chamorshi market committee
preferred the present petition as noted above. On 18 th January, 2001, this
Court, on the application of Chamorshi market committee, granted stay of
the impugned order of the Joint Director on 7 th April, 2000. As a result, on
Judgment 4 wp2645.00.odt
19th January, 2001, respondent No.4 reported to Gadchiroli market
committee with a joining request. The request, however, was not acceded to
by the latter. On 5 th February, 2001, respondent No.4 brought this
development to the notice of this Court by filing a pursis. On 12 th February,
2001, this Court taking note of the pursis, granted two weeks' time to
Gadchiroli market committee warning the latter that the arrears of salary
were liable to be recovered with penal interest. On 27 th February, 2001, this
Court issued directions to Gadchiroli market committee to allow respondent
No.4 to join duty on 28th February, 2001. On this date, respondent No.4 did
join Gadchiroli committee. On 14 th March, 2001, a Division Bench of this
Court was pleased to observe that insofar as arrears of salary are concerned,
they will be subject to this Court's decision finally to be rendered in the
present petition. The Division Bench made it clear that the person found
liable to pay the salary for the intervening period would have to pay penal
interest. That is where the matter rests as of this date.
6. The petition could not be heard finally till date, by which time
respondent No.4 has fully served Gadchiroli market committee and even left
its services. The question now to be considered is only about the arrears of
salary to be paid to respondent No.4, particularly as between Gadchiroli and
Chamorshi market committees who should pick up the tab for unpaid salary
of respondent No.4 during the intervening period.
Judgment 5 wp2645.00.odt
7. Learned counsel for Gadchiroli market committee submits that
the petition involves a challenge to the order of the Joint Director of
Marketing launched by Chamorshi market committee. Respondent No.4
cannot be granted any relief including arrears of his salary in the present
petition filed at the instance of Chamorshi market committee. Learned
counsel takes me through the prayers in the petition and submits that there is
no scope for passing any such order. I am afraid that is not quite correct.
The Writ Court was essentially concerned with the matter of allotment of
services of respondent No.4 to either of the market committees before it,
namely, Chamorshi Market Committee and Gadchiroli Market Committee.
The allotment of services in turn would involve two aspects, namely, joining
and rendering of services by respondent No.4 and payment of salary to him.
This being the subject matter of this writ petition and this Court having
expressly observed as part of an interim order passed by it that the question
of unpaid salary to respondent No.4 in the intervening period will be decided
at the final hearing of the petition, it cannot possibly be suggested that the
question of unpaid salary to respondent No.4 is foreign to this petition as
framed.
8. We may now consider what should be the correct position in
the facts of the case as far as the payment of unpaid salary is concerned. It is
quite clear that as between (i) 25 th June, 1999, i.e. the date immediately
following the order of the District Deputy Registrar, dated 24 th June, 1999,
Judgment 6 wp2645.00.odt
relieving respondent No.4 from Gadchiroli market committee for joining
Chamorshi market committee and (ii) 30 th July, 1999, when the order of the
District Deputy Registrar reconsidering the matter and allotting the services
of respondent No.4 to Gadchiroli market committee was passed, it will be the
duty of Chamorshi market committee to pay salary to respondent No.4. The
original order of allotment was in place as of 25 th June, 1999 and the
employee, admittedly, offered his services to Chamorshi market committee in
pursuance of that order during this period. He was not allowed to join duties
despite the order. As between 31 st July, 1999 and 6th September, 1999, the
duty to pay unpaid salary will clearly be that of Gadchiroli market
committee. On 31st July, 1999, respondent No.4 reported to Gadchiroli
market committee for joining the services as per the order of 3 rd July, 1999
passed by the District Deputy Registrar, but he was not allowed to join.
Finally, with the intervention of the District Deputy Registrar, Gadchiroli
market committee allowed him to join only on 7 th September, 1999. The tab
for the salary for this period must be picked up by Gadchiroli market
committee. On 20th April, 2000, respondent No.4 was relieved from
Gadchiroli market committee in pursuance of the appellate order passed by
the Joint Director. He, accordingly, reported to Chamorshi market
committee on that date. Chamorshi market committee, however, refused to
allow him to join duties. It, instead, as noted above, preferred the instant
writ petition challenging the appellate order of the Joint Director. The
appellate order was stayed by this Court on 18 th January, 2001. There is no
Judgment 7 wp2645.00.odt
reason, in the premises, when the appellate order was effective between 20 th
April, 2000 and 17th January, 2001, why Chamorshi market committee
should not pay salary dues of respondent No.4. As far as dues after 18 th
January, 2001 (i.e. the date on which the appellate order of Joint Director
was stayed) and till 27th February, 2001 (i.e. the date on which, pursuant to
the directions issued by this Court, respondent No.4 was allowed to join
Gadchiroli market committee) are concerned, it will undoubtedly have to be
Gadchiroli market committee who would have to pay the same. After this
Court granted stay of the appellate order of the Joint Director, there is no
reason why Gadchiroli market committee should not have allowed
respondent No.4 to join duties. It took not just the persuasion of this Court
but mandatory directions passed on 27 th February, 2001 for Gadchiroli
market committee to allow respondent No.4 to resume duties on 28 th
February, 2001. The responsibility to pay the arrears of salary for this period
can very well be laid at the door of Gadchiroli market committee.
9. It is made clear that whilst passing this order, this Court has not
really considered the merits of the challenge by Chamorshi Market
Committee in the present petition. Indeed it was not pressed by the
petitioner or any of the parties, since, at any rate, in pursuance of the
directions passed by this Court on 27th February, 2017, respondent No.4
actually joined Gadchiroli Market Committee and worked with it till he left
the services. This order of apportioning the unpaid salary as between the
Judgment 8 wp2645.00.odt
two market committees is passed on considerations of justice, equity and
good conscience, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
10. In the premises, the petition is disposed of in terms of the
following order :
i) The petitioner herein (Chamorshi Agricultural Produce Market
Committee) shall pay arrears of salary to respondent No.4 as
between (i) 25th June, 1999 and 30th July, 1999 and (ii) 20th
April, 2000 to 17th January, 2001, with interest @ 12% per
annum from the respective due dates of salaries till payment or
realisation.
ii) Respondent No.3 (Gadchiroli Agricultural Produce Market
Committee) shall pay arrears of salary to respondent No.4 for
the period between (i) 31 st July, 1999 and 6th September, 1999
and (ii) 18th January, 2001 to 27th February, 2001, with interest
@ 12% per annum from the respective due dates of salaries till
payment or realisation.
iii) No order as to costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
