Bombay High Court
Solapur District Co-Operative Group ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Ministry ... on 18 December, 2023
Author: Nitin Jamdar
Bench: Nitin Jamdar
2023:BHC-AS:38200-DB
1 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5758 OF 2021
Solapur District Co-operative
Group Secretaries Association
through its President
Pandurang Dnyanoba Vyavhare
Age : 57 years, Occu.: Service,
Residing at Post Karkamb,
Taluka : Pandharpur, District : Solapur ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Ministry of Co-operation and
Textiles, Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Commissioner of Co-operation and
Registrar, Co-operative Societies
Maharashtra, 2nd floor, New Central
Building, Opposite B.J. Medical College
Camp, Pune
3. The District Central Co-operative Bank
Solapur through its Administrator,
Having Office at Goldfinch, Peth, Solapur
4. The Solapur Zillah Dekharekh Sahakari
Sanstha, Solapur, through Liquidator
Having Office at 46, Navi Peth,
Yogeshwari Complex, Solapur
::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2023 08:21:02 :::
2 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
5. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Solapur,
Having office at Collector's Office
Compound, Solapur ... Respondents
Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sarang Aradhye, Mr.
Shantanu Gurav, Ms. Shruti Kothavade and Mr. Saarth Chordia for
the Petitioner
Dr. Birendra B. Saraf, Advocate General with Mr. P.P. Kakade, G.P.
and Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for the State - Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5
Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Umesh Mankapure for
Respondent No.3
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 18 DECEMBER 2023
Judgment (Per Nitin Jamdar, J.) :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents
waive service.
2. The Petitioner - Solapur District Co-operative Group
Secretaries Association filed this Writ Petition on 21 March 2021 for
a direction to the Respondents to implement the directives issued by
the State Government on 6 December 2010 and the subsequent
decisions. Thereafter, the clause in the order dated 6 December
3 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
2010, which the Petitioner sought to be enforced stood
modified/substituted by the order dated 15 March 2022. By an
amendment in this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order
dated 15 March 2022. The primary challenge in the Petition now,
after amendment, is to the order dated 15 March 2022.
3. The Petitioner - Society was established in the year 1990
and has around 510 members in the Solapur District. Respondent
No.1 is the State of Maharashtra through the Ministry of Co-
operation and Textile. Respondent No.2 is the Commissioner of Co-
operation and Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Respondent No.3 is
the District Central Co-operative Bank. Respondent No.4 is the
Solapur Zilha Dekharekh Sahakari Sanstha, Solapur and Respondent
No.5 is the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Solapur.
4. The members of the Petitioner - Society are Group
Secretaries. In 1940, the Mehta-Bhansali Committee proposed the
concept of Group Secretaries for processing applications for loans
and disbursing loans to the members of the Co-operative Societies
who are farmers and to liaison between the Government Department
to implement various Government schemes and to look after the
secretarial work of the ground level Co-operative Societies. The
work of Group Secretaries began sometime in the year 1945. On 18
June 1971, the State Government issued a Government Resolution
4 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
for the caderisation of Group Secretaries. Thereafter, on 28 March
1972, certain monetary benefits to the District Supervision Co-
operative Societies were provided for. The Commissioner for Co-
operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued a Circular
on 14 August 1974 indicating the role of the Group Secretaries with
Primary Agricultural Credit Societies.
5. The structure of Co-operative Agricultural Credit
Societies in the State of Maharashtra is three-tiered. The Primary
Agricultural Credit Societies function on the village level, District
Central Co-operative Banks work at the District level, and at the
State level it is the State Co-operative Bank. The District Central
Co-operative Bank disburses loans to the Primary Agricultural
Credit Societies charging 4% interest on the crop loans and in turn,
the Primary Agricultural Credit Societies charge 6% interest to the
farmers. It is this 2% margin that is the profit and income of the
Primary Agricultural Credit Societies.
6. The Government of India took an initiative to
strengthen the co-operative credit structure. For that purpose, the
Government of India constituted a committee known as the
Vaidyanathan Committee. The Vaidyanathan Committee submitted
its report on the revival of Rural Co-operative Credit Institutions.
On 13 November 2006, the Government of India, the State of
Maharashtra and the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural
5 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
Development (NABARD) signed a tripartite Memorandum of
Understanding. The State of Maharashtra by amendment to the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the Act of 1960)
inserted Section 69A in respect of the constitution of the Co-
operative State Cadre of Secretaries of certain societies and
establishment of employment fund for the cadre. Section 69B was
added to the Act of 1960, by the Maharashtra Act 11 of 2008.
Section 69B provides for the constitution of the District Level
Committees and the State Level Committees for solving the
problems related to the service and salaries of existing group
secretaries.
7. On 6 December 2010, the State of Maharashtra issued
directions laying down a methodology concerning the group
secretaries. This order referred to the report of the Vaidyanathan
Committee. The introduction and the appointment of the State and
District Level Committees to resolve various issues faced by the
Group Secretaries and to streamline these modalities, certain
directions were issued. There were directions regarding absorption
and payment of salary. There were further directions on 23
November 2012 and 8 February 2019.
8. The State of Maharashtra repealed Section 69A by the
Maharashtra Act 16 of 203 on 13 August 2023. This was pursuant
to the report of the Vaidyanathan Committee and the tripartite
6 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of India,
the State of Maharashtra and the NABARD.
9. This Petition was filed by the Petitioner on 21 March
2021 with a grievance that despite various directions of this Court to
implement the order dated 6 December 2010, the same was not
being done correctly and despite subsequent communications dated
23 November 2012 and 8 February 2019 regarding the release of
salary of Group Secretaries there was no progress. Even the
representation made by the Petitioner - --Society to the State
Government on 16 August 2020 yielded no result. Making this
grievance this Writ Petition was filed, praying for a direction to the
Respondents, more particularly, the Respondent No.3 the District
Central Co-operative Bank to forthwith act upon on the
Government Directives dated 6 December 2020 and the
subsequent communications dated 23 November 2012 and 08
February 2019 for release of salary of the Group Secretaries.
10. The Petition first came up on board on 21 September
2021 and it was adjourned from time to time for completing the
pleadings. An interim order came to be passed on 20 December
2021 specifying Without Prejudice a temporary arrangement with
the direction to place the matter for hearing.
7 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
11. On 15 March 2022, the State issued another directive
and modified clause 4 of the directives dated 6 December 2010,
which provided for modalities of payment. The order dated 15
March 2022 was issued under Section 79(1) whereby Clause 4 of the
order dated 6 December 2010 was deleted and substituted by
Clauses 4A and 4B in the order dated 15 March 2022. Clause 4A
and 4B in the order of 15 March 2022, (as per the translation
provided by the State) lays down as under.
"4A. Financial assistance is provided by the District
Central Co-operative Bank to various Multipurpose Co-
operative Credit Societies for providing short, medium
and long term credit to farmers for agriculture in a three-
tier credit structure. Various Multipurpose Co-operative
Credit Societies provide loans to farmers at the village
level through financial assistance received from banks.
District Central Co-operative Banks provide financing to
various Multipurpose Co-operative Credit Societies at
4% interest rate for short term loans. Loans are
disbursed to farmers at 6% interest rate by various
Multipurpose Co-operative Credit Societies. The
District Central Co-operative Banks provides financing
to variations Multipurpose Co-operative Credit Societies
at an interest rate of 10.50% for medium term and long
term loans. The loans are disbursed to farmers at an
interest rate of 12.50% by various Multipurpose Co-
operative Credit Societies at 2% of the said short,
medium and long term loan allocation remains to
Vividha Karyakari Seva Co-operative Societies. From
the said 2% margin, the Multipurpose Co-operative
Credit Societies should manage their expenses. In other
words as amount towards salary of Group Secretaries has
8 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
to be paid from the 2% margin amount of the
Multipurpose Co-operative Credit Societies.
Group secretaries are the employees of Multipurpose
Co-operative Credit Societies. Hence, amount towards
salary of Group Secretary has to be paid by the
concerned society. It is mandatory for the District
Central Co-operative Bank to pay the salary amount to
the group secretary from the 2% margin amount and
such amount has to be credited on the account of
concerned society.
4B. Primary Various Multipurpose Co-operative
Credit Societies should deposit the amount of the
contribution to be paid towards the salary of the group
secretaries appointed by them from 2% margin
amount/income received from them in the account of
concerned account of District Supervision Committee
maintained in the District Central Co-operative Bank by
10th day of every month.
Those Societies who will not deposit the amount
towards salary of group secretaries from 2% margin
amount in the account of concerned District Supervision
Committee in spite of recovery, the District Level
Committee shall ascertain and verify that 23% margin
amount is available on the account of concerned society
and then will recommend the District Central Co-
operative Bank to deposit the recovered amount in the
account of concerned society of District Supervision
Committee.
As per the recommendations of the District Level
Committee, the District Central Co-operative Bank will
deposit 2% margin amount towards the salaries of the
group Secretaries and will debit the said amount in the
account of the concerned society. It is mandatory for the
9 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
Bank to follow the recommendations of the District
Level Committee."
The Petitioner sought leave to challenge the order dated 15 March
2022 by amending the Petition which leave was granted and
amendment was carried out. Reply affidavit is filed.
12. Reply affidavit is filed including additional affidavits in
respect of the amended Petition on behalf of Respondent No.3 - the
District Central Co-operative Bank, State of Maharashtra and
Respondent No.4. They have opposed the prayers.
13. We have heard Mr. Y.S. Jahagidar, Senior Advocate for
the Petitioner, Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate for the
Respondent No.3 and Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General for the
Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
14. The Petitioner, in short, contends that the directives
dated 16 December 2010 were preceded by reports of various
committees and deliberations and it was an informed decision of the
State Government based on material. By various orders of this Court
that is in Writ Petition No. 9525 of 2010 dated 14 December 2010,
Writ Petition No. 11124 of 2010 dated 24 February 2011 and Writ
Petition No. 4457 of 2011 dated 7 July 2014 the State Government
has been directed to enforce the directives dated 6 December 2020
and these orders have not been challenged. This well-considered
10 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
and informed decision of the State, enforced by this Court is sought
to be nullified by issuing the order dated 15 March 2022 which is a
mere corrigendum. There is no rationale or basis for this change. It
is well established that a corrigendum can only be issued to correct
clerical errors. Therefore order issued under Section 79A(1) which is
based on the report of the Registrar cannot be substantively changed
by a corrigendum. The principle that a corrigendum cannot change
substantive orders is recognized in the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vipinchandra Vadilal Bavishi (Dead) by Legal
Representatives and Anr. v/s. State of Gujarat and Ors. 1 and the
decision of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Dr. Vinod Kumar
Chauhan v/s. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. 2 Therefore, the
corrigendum dated 15 March 2022 being issued without any power
and any rationale is bad in law especially when the order dated 16
December 2010 has been directed to be enforced by this Court. It is
issued during the pendency of the present Petition to nullify the
earlier orders of the Court. These are the grounds of challenge of the
Petitioner before us.
15. On behalf of the State and the District Co-operative
Bank, it is contended that whatever the phraseology used in the
order dated 15 March 2022, the order is traceable to a statutory
power under Section 79A(2) of the Act of 1960, and the description
in the document is not determinative of the power exercised. It is
1 (2016) 4 SCC 531
2 (2023) SCC OnLine Utt 1223
11 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
contended that a misconception which led to certain confusion
regarding modality of payment was corrected by the order dated 15
March 2022 and the Petitioner has not suffered any prejudice nor it
is the case of the Petitioner that any of its rights are violated. The
rationale for the change is placed on record in the reply affidavits.
16. We have considered the rival submissions. Though the
Petitioner has sought to trace the history in respect of the group
secretaries since the year 1940 in an attempt to project that litigation
has a complex history, the issue urged before us, which is a legal one,
lies in a narrow compass.
17. The original prayer made in this Petition is that the
directions issued by the State Government dated 6 December 2010
be enforced. It now stands substituted with the challenge to the order
dated 15 March 2022. That being the scope of this Petition, we have
examined the grounds of challenge to the order dated 15 March
2022 in the Petition. The grounds of challenge to the order dated
15 March 2022 are limited. These are that the directions issued by
the State Government on 6 December 2010 are statutory and they
could not be diluted or modified by issuing a corrigendum.
Secondly, the corrigendum can be issued only for mathematical
purposes. It is sought to be argued that this challenge is contrary to
the directions of this Court and carried out during the pendency of
the present Petition. These are the basic challenges.
12 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
18. During oral arguments, Petitioner has repeated this
central theme with variations. If the order dated 15 March 2022 is
issued under the statutory power and it is permissible for the State
Government to do so, there is no challenge on merits in the
pleadings to the fresh exercise of power by the State Government.
19. First to consider the Petitioner's argument that the order
dated 15 March 2022 is contrary to the orders of this Court. The
Petitioner has relied upon the orders passed in Writ Petition No.
9525 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 4457 of 2011 and Writ Petition
No. 11124 of 2010. In Writ Petition No. 9525 of 2010, the
Kolhapur District Cooperative Group Secretaries Association and
others sought implementation of the directions dated 6 December
2010. In this Petition, a simpliciter direction was issued by order
dated 14 December 2010 to comply with the directions dated 6
December 2010. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 4457 of 2011, the
Ahmednagar Zilla Dekhrekh Sah. Sanstha (Cader), Karmachari
Union, sought direction for complying with the directions dated 6
December 2010. In Writ Petition No. 11124 of 2010 also, the
petitioners- Aurangabad District Co-operative Societies Group
Secretaries Association sought similar direction to implement the
directions dated 6 December 2010.
13 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
20. All the orders passed in the above Writ Petitions on 14
December 2010, 24 February 2011 and 7 July 2014 respectively
directed implementation of the directions dated 6 December 2010.
At that time, directions dated 6 December 2010 were in force and
since those who were bound by them were not implementing them,
the writ was issued by this Court. Thus, the Court issued directions
to enforce the directions of 6 December 2010 as it was applicable
then. None of these orders lay down any foundational principle that
the methodology to be adopted for payment to the Group Secretaries
as stated in the Government directions dated 6 December 2010 can
never be changed, modified or clarified. Therefore, based on these
orders which only direct the implementation of existing Government
orders, it cannot be argued that the State Government is precluded
from modifying the order dated 6 December 2010. Similar is the
contention that the order dated 15 March 2022 was passed while this
Writ Petition is pending. There was no restraint order for the State to
exercise the statutory power or any direction that the State cannot or
should not change or clarify the methodology.
21. That brings us to the Petitioner's main argument that the
order dated 6 December 2010 could not have been superseded or
modified by issuing a corrigendum. The Petitioner argues that the
order dated 6 December 2010 was issued by the State Government
by exercising power under Section 79A(1) of the Act of 1960 (as it
stands now) and this order cannot be substituted by corrigendum.
14 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
22. The basis for the Petitioner's contention is the phrase
'clarification/corrigendum' used in the order dated 15 March 2022.
However, it is settled law that if the authority has a statutory power
to issue a particular direction in law and while exercising the power,
the source of power is not referred to or wrongly referred to, on that
ground alone the exercise of power cannot be set aside. This
principle has been followed in several decisions. The learned
Advocate General has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of N.Mani Versus Sangeetha Theatre and
Others.3 which has taken this view. Therefore, merely because the
word corrigendum has been used in the order dated 15 March 2022,
it would not be determinative of the nature of power used.
23. According to the Petitioner, the directions dated 6
December 2010 were issued under Section 79A (1) of the Act of
1960. In that context, Section 79A(1) needs to be noticed. It reads
thus:
"79A. [Government's power] to give directions in the
public interest, etc.-
(1) [If the State Government, on receipt of a report
from the Registrar or otherwise, is satisfied] that in
the public interest or for the purposes of securing
proper implementation of co-operative production
and other development programmes approved or
undertaken by Government, or to secure the proper
3 (2004) 12 SCC 278
15 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
management of the business of the society generally,
or for preventing the affairs of the society being
conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of
the members or of the depositors or the creditors
thereof, it is necessary to issue directions to any class
of societies generally or to any society or societies in
particular, [the State Government may issue]
directions to them from time to time, and all societies
or the societies concerned, as the case may be, shall
be bound to comply with such directions.
(2) [The State Government may] modify or cancel
any directions issued under sub-section (1), and in
modifying or cancelling such directions may impose
such conditions as [it may deem fit].
(3) Where the Registrar is satisfied that any person
was responsible for complying with any directions or
modified directions issued to a society under
sub-sections (1) and (2) and he has failed without
any good reason or justification, to comply with the
directions, the Registrar may by order--
(a) if the person is a member of the committee
of the society, [declare him to be disqualified to
be or to continue to be a member of the
committee of any society,] for a period of six
years from the date of the order;
(b) if the person is an employee of the society,
direct the committee to remove such person
from employment of the society forthwith, and
if any member or members of the committee,
without any good reason or justification, fail to
comply with this order declare them disqualified
as provided in clause (a) above:
16 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
Provided that, before making any order under
this sub-section, the Registrar shall give a reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the person or persons
concerned and consult the federal society is
affiliated.
[Provided further that, such federal society shall
communicate its opinion to the Registrar within a
period of forty-five days from the date of receipt of
communication, failing which it shall be presumed
that such federal society has no objection to take
action under this section and the Registrar shall be
at liberty to proceed further to take action
accordingly.]
Any order made by the Registrar under this section
shall be final]".
(emphasis supplied)
Therefore, under Section 79A (1), the State Government, on receipt
of a report from the Registrar or otherwise, is satisfied in the public
interest or other purposes mentioned therein can issue directions
from time to time. Sub-section (2) of Section 79A empowers the
State Government to modify or cancel any directions issued under
sub-section (1). Therefore, the power of modification of the
directions or to cancel the directions issued under Section 79A (1) is
specifically provided under Section 79A (2). Even otherwise under
Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 where, by any Act or
Regulations a power to issue notifications, orders, rules or by-laws is
conferred, then that power includes a power to add to, amend, vary
or rescind any notifications orders, rules or bye-laws so issued
17 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
24. By the order dated 15 March 2022, the State
Government has modified/clarified the part of the directions dated 6
December 2010 in respect of clause 4 thereof. Such power is vested
in the State Government under Section 79A (2) of the Act of 1960.
The contention of the Petitioner that the exercise of power under
Section 79A(1) has to be preceded by a report of the Registrar, is
incorrect by the plain language of Section 79A(1) where the words
"report of the Registrar" are followed by the words "or otherwise".
The stand of the state is that the order dated 15 March 2022 is
merely clarificatory while Petitioner contends that it modifies the
order dated 6 December 2010. Both contingencies are covered under
Section 79A (2) of the Act of 1960.
25. Since the order dated 15 March 2022 is traceable to the
exercise of the statutory power of modification, the reliance of the
Petitioner on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Vipinchandra Vadilal Bavishi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and
Anr. and the decision of the High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of
Dr. Vinod Kumar Chauhan are misplaced. The Petitioner's only
challenge to the order dated 15 March 2022 is that it modified clause
4 of the directions dated 6 December 2010 without lack of power on
behalf of the State to modify by corrigendum. This argument based
on the order dated 15 March 2022 being merely a corrigendum
which can only be issued for correction of arithmetical and clerical
errors is without any basis and is rejected.
18 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
26. However, during oral argument, the Petitioner has sought
to contend that there is no rationale for carrying out the change as
done by the order dated 15 March 2022 in clause 4 of the directions
dated 6 December 2010 and it would be contrary to the backdrop in
which the order dated 6 December 2010 is passed.
27. The State and District Central Co-operative Bank
submitted that despite there being no separate pleading in the
Petition the oral argument of the Petition is met by providing reasons
for the proposed change in their replies. The District Central Co-
operative Bank (Respondent No.3) has outlined the roles and
responsibilities of Group Secretaries and how they operate. District
Central Co-operative Bank argues that these Secretaries are a
significant cause for the accumulation of the Non-Performing Assets.
They grant loans to their members, but due to undisclosed reasons,
fail to recover them. This non-recovery leads to the Non-Performing
Assets (NPA) exceeding acceptable limits. District Central Bank
contends that every Primary Agricultural Credit Society must deposit
their salaries into the District Central Bank, and if the society fails to
do so without a recommendation from the district-level committee,
the District Central Bank cannot pay the salary. It is asserted that
Group Secretaries are not employees of the District Central Bank,
and it is the responsibility of the Primary Society to pay their salaries.
If a society and its Secretary fail to recover the loan, the District
19 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
Central Bank cannot be held accountable for the salaries of Group
Secretaries. It is contended that the District Central Bank must
operate by instructions from the Reserve Bank of India and the State,
as it is the custodian of public funds and is accountable to the public.
Without directives from the district-level committee, the District
Central Bank cannot pay the salaries of the Group Secretaries.
28. The Commissioner for Co-Operation in the State has
supported the stand of the District Central Bank in the affidavit. The
affidavit asserts that there is no employer-employee relationship
between Group secretaries and the District Central Bank.
Consequently, the responsibility for paying the petitioners' salaries
does not rest with the Bank. According to, Primary Societies are
required to deposit an amount equivalent to 1.25 times the annual
salary of secretaries with the supervision society. However, there was
an ambiguity in interpreting this directive in the order dated 6
December 2010. It was necessary to provide clarification for the
Primary Societies to ensure a clear understanding of the payment of
salaries to Group Secretaries. The directive issued on 6 December
2010 was being misinterpreted that the District Central Bank was
responsible for paying the secretaries' salaries. In reality, the Primary
Societies are primarily accountable for these payments. They recover
loans from members and repay the District Central Bank at a 4% per
annum rate, with 2% covering managerial expenses, including
20 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
Secretaries' salaries. The Primary Societies bear the primary
responsibility for paying group secretaries' salaries. The District
Central Bank is not obligated to use its funds for these payments, as
its funds come from deposits. The employer - primary societies, are
obligated to pay the salaries. The other clauses in the order dated 6
December 2010 order are still in effect, along with those from
March 15, 2022, issued by the same authority. Therefore, there is no
illegality or infirmity in these directives.
29. According to the State, therefore, the salaries of the
Group Secretaries always related to the Primary Agricultural Credit
Society, depending on the balance of their account and it was the
never responsibility of the District Central Cooperative Bank to step
in to address the shortfalls and take on liability for the payment.
This misconception was sought to be redressed by the order dated 15
March 2022 by exercising power under Section 79A(2) of the Act of
1960. This reason given as an answer to the oral arguments of the
petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary.
30. As far as emoluments which are to be paid to the Group
Secretaries are concerned, they are not altered. Even otherwise, the
State of Maharashtra has taken a policy decision. It has added 69B in
the Act of 1960 to constitute District Level and State Level
Committees for solving the issues relating to services and salaries of
existing Group Secretaries. The learned Advocate General also
21 401. Writ Petn. 5758.2021.doc
confirms that if there is any grievance that despite funds being
available, the salaries are not paid to the Group Secretaries, then
recourse to the District Level and State Level Committees formed
under Section 69B of the Act of 1960 is available to them.
31. Therefore, there is no merit in the main challenge that
the order dated 15 March 2022 being corrigendum cannot modify or
clarify the statutory order issued on 6 December 2010 and that it is
contrary to the orders issued by this Court. There is no challenge on
the merits of the order dated 15 March 2022 in the pleadings and
the arguments made during oral arguments are countered by the
Respondents to demonstrate that the order dated 15 March 2022 is a
bona fide exercise of power.
32. In conclusion, we do not find any merit in the Petition.
33. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No
order as to costs.
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. NITIN JAMDAR, J.
