Ram Narain Pandey vs State of U.P.& Ors.

In several petitions questions are raised as to the age of superannuation of Secretary of Cooperative societies who have become members of Centralised Service Rules as promulgated w.e.f. 1981976 and subsequently amended as per notification dated 861984.

Writ Petition No. 23491 of 1996 has been filed by Ram Narain Pandey, who has admitted in para No. 4 of the writ petition that he became a member of the Centralised Service in the year 1977. Katwaroo Prasad, petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 23550 of 1996 has said that the petitioner was a member of Sachan Sahkari Samiti at Panchayat level which was not a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society within the meaning of the Centralised Service Rules, 1975. He, however, has admitted that he is effected by the order dated 771996 which has been passed by the member Secretary, District Administrative Committee Cooperative, Jaunpur treating him to be a member of the centralised service. From the averments made in the writ petition it is clear that this petitioner had at no time exercised option denouncing the absorption in the centralised cadre.

Ram Adhar Misra, the Petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 24007 of 1996 has admitted in para No. 11 of the writ petition that he is working as Secretary of Kisan Sava Sahkari Samiti Limited, Naugawan, District Badrauna and that he is also challanging the order dated 761996 passed by the Member Secretary, District Administrative Committee. The said order indicates that the petitioner has all through been treated as the member of the Centralised cadre. There is no avernment to the contrary in the writ petition that the petitioner ever exercised option contrary to how he had been treated all through.

Harhar Singh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 24921 of 1996, also challanges the identical type of order passed by the Secretary, District Administrative Committee, Jaunpur in July, 1996 (the date is not given in the impugned order as filed by the petitioner).

Ram Achal Misra, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23910 of 1996 likewise challanges the order dated 1861996 (Annexure No. 2) whereby the Member Secretary, District Administrative Committee Cooperative, Jaunpur has proposed to treat the petitioner as superannuating on reaching the age of 58 years to be attained on 31 71996.

Therefore, as is evident all the petitioners challenge on one fact and i.e. that they are not to be superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years. They contended that every one of them is to continue till they attained the age of 60 years because at the time of their entry in the original service of the then society concerning each one of them he was governed by a contract of service which permitted them to go upto the age of 60 years.

Learned counsel for the petitioners namely Sri Ram Krishna, Sri J.P. Narain, Shri Suresh Singh, Shri Lallan Prasad Singh and Shri Suresh Kumar Srivastava have been heard at considerable length. Shri O.R Singh as well as Shri Hemant Kumar and Shri R. N. Ojha have represented the various opposite parties in these petitions. Shri S.M.A. Kazmi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel has also been heard on behalf of the State of U.P. Since the questions raised have to be decided on the provisions existing and the pleadings already made in the writ petitions, it is being finally disposed of after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage without calling for counter affidavits.

In view of the narration of fact contained above, it is clear that each one of the petitioners had already been absorbed into the Centralised Service Rules of 1975. To know what these Centralised Service Rules are one may have a look at Section 122 A incorporated in the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 by U.P. Act No. 12 of 1976. The aforesaid Section 122A provides that the State Government may by rules create one or more services of such employees of such Cooperative Societies or class of Cooperative Societies as the State Government may think fit, Common to such Cooperative Societies and prescribe the method of recruitment, appointment, removal and other conditions of service of persons appointed to any such service.

Benefit the details, it may be mentioned that U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies Centralised Service Rules, 1976 came to be promulgated w.e.f. 1981976. The definitions given in Rule 2 of the Centralised Rules delineate who are to become members of those rules. Chapter 6 consisting of Rules 20, 21 and 22 of the Centralised Rules provide for absorption of employees. It may be mentioned for clarifications sake that recruitment to the centralised service is dealt with in para 7. For the time being since the case of each of the petitioners is resting with the claim of having been absorbed initially, no reference in this case need be made to the provisions of recruitment. This judgment, therefore, shall be confined to the provisions contained for absorbing employees who were already in service in some of the societies.

Rule 20 of the Centralised Rules creates a unique deeming clause. It says that existing employees of the societies at the commencement of those centralised Rules shall be deemed to be provisionally absorbed in the Centralised Rules. Rule 21 demarcates an action on the part of the respondents for dealing with the petitioners or the like who stood provisionally absorbed. To be specific, Rule 21, provides that the existing employees of the societies taken provisionally on the strength of the Centralised Rules, shall be finally absorbed in the said service after their screening arranged in accordance with the instructions issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in this behalf. The aforesaid provision, therefore, makes it imperative on the part of the respondents to screen away those who may not be coming within the frame work of absorption methodology laid down by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Coming to Rule 22 it may be noticed that a mandatory choice or option is made available to an employee absorbed by the aforesaid deeming Rules. The said Rule 20 provides that an employee of the society provisionally included in the centralised service shall, by notice in writing in that behalf to the Secretary of the District Committee within thirty days of the Commencement of these Rules intimate his option of not becoming a member of such service and in that case his services shall be deemed to be terminated with effect from the date of such notice. Some compensatory provisions exist in the Rule which will be attracted only if and when an employee opts for not coming within the centralised service.

None of the petitioners has pleaded that any of them had exercised option for not coming within the centralised service. It follows, therefore, that the admitted position is that all the petitioners had readily embraced the centralised service and became members thereof.

An argument has been raised by the petitioners learned counsel which is based upon the language used in Regulation 24 of what is known as U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. These employees service regulations have been put in vogue w.e.f. 611976. As noted above the Centralised Service Rules to be promulgated in August, 1976, therefore, those who may otherwise have been governed by the Employees Service Regulations, 1975 shall have to be governed by the Centralised Service Rules if they are to be forming the cadre who have to opt and choose either of the courses left open to them by Rule 20, 21 and 22 of the Centralised Service Rules. However, since much emphasis was laid on Regulation 24, it may be noted here that the said Regulation 24 in the Employees Service Regulation provides that the date of superannuation from service of an employee of a Cooperative society shall be the age of 58 years but it carves out a proviso that if there was a contract whereby the employee was entitled to be retained in service after the date on which he attained 58 years, the provisions of the said regulation would not apply and the date of superannuation of such employee shall be deemed in a accordance with the terms of the said contract.

In view of what has been stated above an employee who continued to be governed by the provisions of the Employees Service Regulations can alone rely upon Regulation 24. Any member of Centralised Service who became a member thereof after its promulgation in August, 1976 cannot fall back upon Regulation 24 so as to blow hot and cold together.

The petitioners have already taken the benefits of the Centralised Service Rules, 1976 and have continued in service till they are just about to retire. It is too late for the petitioners to say that they would now prefer to be governed by the Employees Service Regulations and not the Centralised Service Rules. In fact as noted above each and every petitioner had become a member of the Centralised Service having not given an option denouncing the membership of such Centralised Service.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, all the writ petitioner fail and are dismissed summarily.