K. Narasimhulu vs Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited,

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not paying the salary for the period from 1.10.2007 to 17.07.2009 as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and to consequently direct the first respondent to pay the petitioner his salary for the period 1.10.2007 to 17.07.2009.

The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a regular category secretary for the first respondent and worked as such for more than 30 years as a secretary in PACS Motkuru and claims to have rendered his service successfully as per jobs assigned to him. It is submitted that due to certain personal grudges against the petitioner by the ex-president of PACS Motkuru, the second respondent office made some flimsy allegations against the petitioner that he was not discharging his duties properly and consequently decided to surrender his services to the second respondent office. The second respondent did not accept the said surrender and vide letter dated 28.12.2007 returned the petitioner services to first respondent with instructions that the action taken by the first respondent in surrendering the services of the petitioner is not correct and that if any lapses are found in the discharge of his duties, the first respondent has to ensure theis actions as per the service regulations and the methods prescribed.

It is submitted that when the petitioner was again not allowed to perform his duties, he was constrained to approach this court in WP No.833/2009 and the Court vide interim order dated 23.01.2009 in WP MP No.1044/2009, directed the first respondent to admit the petitioner into the society to work as secretary in PACS, Motkuru if the post was vacant. The petitioner submits that in spite of the post of the secretary being vacant, the first respondent did not comply with the directions of this Hon’ble court. It is submitted that in the mean time, the Government of AP had issued orders vide GO MS.No.67, Agriculture and Cooperative Department dated 20.02.2009, to categorise the services of the cadre secretaries of the PACS, and to utilize their services in the District Cooperative Central Bank as per the guidelines laid down by the Government. Accordingly, DCCB had issued orders vide proceedings RC No.HRD/2009-10, dated 14.07.2009 admitting the petitioner as a Special Category Assistant in the District Cooperative Central Bank. Accordingly, the petitioner worked as a cashier in DCCB bank Mohammadabad and Hayathnagar and retired from service on 31.12.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner submits that though he made several representations to the first respondent to pay the salary for the period of 1.10.2007 to 17.07.2009, the same has not been paid and therefore, the petitioner had issued a legal notice dated 15.05.2013 and inspite of the same, there was no response from the first respondent and therefore, the present writ petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the submissions made in the writ affidavit, submitted that without any fault of the petitioner, the petitioner was surrendered to second respondent, which was not accepted by the second respondent and therefore, the surrender is not valid and the petitioner continued to be on the rolls of the first respondent. It is submitted that even the directions of the Hon’ble High Court were to permit the petitioner to work and in accordance there-with only, the GO MS.No.67, dt.20.02.2009 was issued. It is submitted that only because the petitioner was on the rolls of first respondent, he has been taken into the District Cooperative Central Bank, Hyderabad as a Special Category Assistant and has discharged his functions as a cashier therein. It is submitted that even though there was a direction of the second respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, on the allegations of his not performing his duties properly, respondent No.1, had not initiated any action, which proves that the allegations made against petitioner herein were not true and correct. He therefore seeks a direction to the respondent No.1 to pay him the salary for the period 01.10.2007 to 17.07.2009 along with interest.

The learned counsel for the respondents i.e. Government pleader for corporation was heard.

The respondent No.1 and 3 have filed separate counters, but the averments made therein are one and the same. According to the counter of the respondents, the petitioner was not discharging his duties properly and was not attending the office regularly and therefore he was surrendered to respondent No.2 on 1.10.2007 and on the very same day, by a resolution, the services of one R.Nagabhushana Chary were engaged and therefore the directions of this court in WP MP No.833/2009 could not be complied with. It is submitted that since the petitioner did not work with the first respondent for the said period, he is not eligible for the salary as claimed by him.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it is noticed that the WP No. 833/2009 filed by the petitioner was ultimately closed on 14.06.2017 by observing that by order dated 23.01.2009, the first respondent was directed to permit the petitioner to work as secretary if the post of the secretary PACS Motkuru is vacant on the said date and that the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation and therefore nothing survives for consideration.

On merits of the issue, it is found that though the first respondent vide letter dated 01-10-2007 has surrendered the petitioner to second respondent, the same was not accepted by the second respondent and vide letter dated 28.12.2007 itself, the first respondent was advised that an action of surrendering the petitioner herein to second respondent is not correct as he is not a Govt. employee to take further action by the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Rangareddy. It was also advised that the society should initiate disciplinary action against the employee duly following the service regulations governing service conditions of the employees of PACS, if the employee of PACS is not discharging his duties properly. Therefore, since the alleged surrender was not accepted by the 2nd respondent, it is clear that the petitioner continued to be the employee of the first respondent till his services are terminated by following the service regulations/service conditions of the employees of the PACS. It is noticed that even in the counter filed by the first respondent, there is no whisper of any action taken by the first respondent against the petitioner after the rejection of surrender by the second respondent vide letter dated 28.12.2007. Another fact worth consideration is that after the GO MS No.67 has been issued by the Government, the petitioner has been taken into service of DCCB, as Special Category Assistant, and though there was a condition that disciplinary action, if any, has been initiated shall continue if they were initiated or may be initiated in future for the irregularities committed by them while working in the PACS, some action may be taken by the first respondent or the DCCB against the petitioner, no action was taken by the respondents.

The petitioner has retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2012. In view of the same, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner continued to be in service of the first respondent till he has been absorbed or taken as a special category assistant for the Hyderabad District Cooperative Central Bank and therefore, the first respondent is liable to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period of 1.10.2007 to 17.07.2009 as claimed by the petitioner. The first respondent is therefore directed to make the payment of salary for the above period to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the writ petition to till the date of payment.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stands closed.