Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/3739/2018 on 15 November, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No.3739 of 2018
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder, for the
State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, for the
respondent No.2.
The Registrar, Milk Cooperative
Committee Uttarakhand, while exercising its
powers under Uttarakhand Cooperative
Societies Act, 2003 as contained under Section
121, had framed the Rules by issuing a
Notification No.1064/2017-2018, dated
08.09.2017, called as "Dugdh Utapadak Sahkari
Sangh Ke Karmikon Hetu Swachik Sewanivrti
Niyamwali - 2017".
It is contended by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, that as per Clause (4) of the said
Rules, as it has been notified on 08.09.2017, it
provides that an application for seeking a
voluntary retirement, has had to be submitted in
accordance with the format, which has been
appended with the Rules, thus, notified by the
Registrar. Apart from it, he also submits that
once an application has been submitted under
the format under clause (4) it is to be processed
by the Department, then it is for the purposes
for giving its effect, that it has had to be
approved by the Registrar in accordance with
sub-clause (2) of clause 6 of the Rules framed
there under.
The petitioner's contention is that his
application for the grant of voluntary
retirement, which he contends, that it was
submitted by him on 04.05.2018, in fact it
cannot be treated as to be an application for the
purposes of voluntary retirement strictly in
accordance with the Rules of 2017, because it
was not submitted in the format, as prescribed
therein, under the Rules.
On the contrary, it has been argued by
the respondent's counsel, that the submission of
an application for seeking a voluntary
retirement under clause (4) has to be in
consonance with the format provided with the
Rules of 2017, may not be a strict and
stipulated condition to be complied with,
particularly, when the said requirement of the
Rules of 2017, is read to the terms and
covenants of the application submitted by the
petitioner for seeking his voluntary retirement,
subject to the fulfilment of the certain pre-
conditions.
Secondly, he submits that even for a
moment, if the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is accepted as against
the approval granted to the application for
voluntary retirement by the Registrar under
sub-clause (2) of clause 6 of the Rules of 2017,
as granted on 27.09.2018, retiring him from the
services w.e.f. 20.09.2018, the petitioner would
still have a remedy under Clause 7, of the Rules
of 2017, by approaching before the Registrar
for the re-dressal of his grievances.
To meet up the argument which had been
extended by the learned counsel for the
respondent, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits, that in fact the provisions
contained under Clause (7), is a nugatory
provision, for the reasons that if it is read
harmoniously with sub-clause (2) of Clause 6
of the Rules of 2017, and his apprehension is
that once the application for voluntary
retirement has been accepted, and the same has
been approved by the Registrar under sub-
clause (2) of the Rules of 2017. In that
eventuality, it is not expected that the Registrar,
while exercising its powers under Clause (7) of
the Rules of 2017, would be sitting
independently over his own approval with a
free mind to decide the dispute, as reserved to
be decided under Clause (7) of the Rules of
2017.
This Court is of the view that the
approval granted under sub-clause (2) of Clause
6 of the Rules of 2017, is only procedural in
nature, which only affirms the decision already
taken by the body, either by accepting or non
accepting of the application for voluntary
retirement. That the approval granted or denied
by Registrar, I am of the view that it may not be
construed to be an independent decision of the
Registrar of considering the voluntary
retirement under clause (4) of the Rules of
2017.
In that eventuality, I am of the view that
when the Registrar exercises his powers against
the acceptance of the application for voluntary
retirement, and when he exercises the power
under clause (7) of the Rules of 2017. It goes
without saying that the said power under clause
(7), is to be exercised by the Registrar which
happens to be legislatively independent to his
power of approval granted under sub-clause (2)
of clause (6) of the Rules of 2017, it goes
without saying and it is expected that he would
be independently deciding the issue under
clause (7) without being influenced with the
approval granted by his office under sub-clause
(2) of clause 6 of the Rules of 2017.
In that eventuality, this Court is of the
view, that the legislature with the conscious
mandate has provided a forum to the petitioner
under Clause (7) of the Rules of 2017. Hence,
the petitioner is relegated to approach before
the Registrar under clause (7) of the Rules of
2017, and if the petitioner thus approaches
before the Registrar, within two weeks from the
date of the receipt of the certified copy of this
judgment, it goes without saying and for the
reasons already observed above, let the
Registrar, would independently apply his mind
to the grievances of the petitioner to be raised
under Clause (7) of the Rules of 2017, and
would not be influenced in any manner
whatsoever, to the approval which has been
granted by him under sub-clause (2) of Rule 6
of the Rules of 2017. The application thus
submitted by the petitioner under clause (7)
before the Registrar as against the acceptance
and approval of his voluntary retirement under
clause (4) to be read with Clause (6), would be
decided independently within a period of six
weeks of the date of the presentation of the
certified copy of this order.
Subject to the above observations and the
exceptions carved out as above, the writ
petition stand disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
15.11.2021
NR/
