Kamal Krishna Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81757

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7820 of 2024

Petitioner :- Kamal Krishna Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Cooperative And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nirankar Singh,Rajani Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

1 . Heard.

¶7

2 . Instant writ petition has been filed praying for following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 02.07.2024 issued by the Opposite Party No.3 as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition, so far it relates to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties, specially the Opposite Party No.3 & 4 to release the salary of the month of July and August 2024 in the interest of justice.

¶9

(iii)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the salary to the petitioner commensurate to his post i.e. Assistant Branch Accountant forthwith and each and every month it becomes due, in the interest of justice.

¶10

(iv).....

¶11

(v)..."

¶12

3 . Short question as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the service conditions of the petitioner, who is an employee of the U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited, are governed by the U.P. Cooperative Society Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations, 1975').

¶13

4 . Chapter IV of the Regulations, 1975 pertains to pay, allowances and increment of which Clause 31 provides that "subject to the

¶14

provision of these regulations, pay and allowances shall accrue from the date of commencement of the service of any employee in a cooperative society and shall become payable in the month following the month in which his service was performed." Various other clauses have been indicated regarding pay and allowances and increment.

¶15

5 . Contention is that the petitioner who is working since the year 2016 as Assistant Branch Accountant was being paid salary regularly. The respondents have issued an order dated 02.07.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, per which it has been indicated that in order to run bank smoothly a recovery of Rs.660 crores for this financial year is required. Salaries of the employees working in the branches and in the Regional offices have now been pegged with the recovery to be made as per stipulation made in the said order.

¶16

6 . It is contended that subsequent thereto the salary of the petitioner has not been paid starting from July, 2024 based on the aforesaid order inasmuch as it has been contended that once the order itself provides that recovery is to be made by the branch and regional offices consequently till such time recovery is made as per the aforesaid stipulation the salary in full cannot be paid.

¶17

7 . The argument is that once Regulation 1975 itself do not provide anywhere for the salary payable to the employee to be pegged to any recovery which is to be made consequently there cannot be any occasion for an office order to be issued by the respondents vide order dated 02.07.2024 so as to peg the salary payable to the petitioner with the recovery to be made.

¶18

8 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has also indicated that once the Regulations, 1975 do not contain any stipulation in this regard as such by means of the office order dated 02.07.2024 the regulations cannot be supplanted or supplemented or amended. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of K.Kuppusamy & Anr vs State of Tamilnadu & Ors: (1998)

¶19

8 SCC 469 and Bank of Baroda & Anr vs G Palani & Ors : (2022) 5

¶20

SCC 612 and the judgments of this Court in the cases of Daya Shankar Singh vs U.O.I. & Ors : (2008) 3 ADJ 21 DB , and Ram Lal vs State of U.P. & Ors : Writ A No.11304 of 2012 .

¶21

9 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank has argued that aforesaid order came to be issued in order to run the bank smoothly consequently every employee working in either in the branch or in the regional office is required to put in his efforts towards the recovery which is required to be made so as to enable him to receive the salary as per the office order dated 02.07.2024 that has been issued by the respondents. However, it is admitted that it is the Regulations, 1975 which would govern the service conditions of the petitioner.

¶22

10 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it emerges that admittedly service conditions of the petitioner, who is working as Assistant Branch Accountant, so far as it pertains to payment of salary and allowance, are governed by the Chapter IV of the Regulations, 1975.

¶23

11 . Clause 31 of the Regulations, 1975 is reproduced hereunder:-

¶24

31. Subject to the provisions of these regulations, pay and allowances shall accrue from the date of commencement of the service of any employee in a co-operative society and shall become payable in the month following the month in which service was performed.

¶25

12 . Chapter IV pertains to pay allowances and increment of which Clause 31 of the Regulations 1975 categorically provides that pay and allowances shall accrue from the date of commencement of service of any employee in a cooperative society and shall become payable in the month following the month in which his service was performed. The said pay and allowances have also be made subject to the provisions of the Regulations, 1975. Nowhere in the regulations it is provided that the salary of an employee working in the branch or regional offices would be pegged with the recovery which is to be

¶26

made by the Bank. Thus, issuance of the office order dated 02.07.2024 pegging the salary of the employees with the recovery to be made would be beyond Clause 31 of the Regulations, 1975.

¶27

13 . Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed . Order dated 02.07.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, so far as it pertains to the petitioner is quashed.

¶28

14 . The respondents shall pay the salary of the petitioner month to month in terms of Regulation 1975.

¶29

15 . At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that though he has prayed for payment of salary for the months of July and August, 2024 yet the same has now been paid to him without any deductions. However, salary for the month of September, 2024 has still not been paid.

¶30

16 . Learned counsel for the respondents points out that the salary for the month of October, 2024 has been paid without any deduction on 30.10.2024.

¶31

17 . Considering the aforesaid the respondents would pay the withheld salary for the month of September, 2024 and continue to pay salary regularly as per the Regulation 1975 month to month.

¶32

Order Date :- 6.12.2024 prateek

¶33

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kamal Krishna Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Krishna Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Durga Prasad Maurya Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Min. of Comm. New Delhi and 2 Others

Kapil Dev Pandey Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication, New Delhi and 2 Others

Vijay Kumar Srivastava Vs Union of India Thru. Secy., Deptt. of Telecommunications, Ministry of Comm. New Delhi and 2 Others

Shyam Bahadur Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education Lko. and 5 Others

Avadhesh Narayan Shukla Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Telecommmunications, Ministry of Comm., New Delhi and 2 Others

Ram Sharan Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication, New Delhi and 2 Others