Allowed

Phulendra Narayan Konwar and 2 Ors. v. the Assam State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC29 Apr 2022WP(C)/5469/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to set aside termination orders dated 22.10.2009 declaring the petitioners as excess employees. Relying on a prior judgment in WP(C) No. 5652/2009 that found such terminations arbitrary for non-compliance with termination laws, the court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination orders dated 22.09.2009 and 22.10.2009 were set aside; petitioners to be reinstated.

Phulendra Narayan Konwar and 2 Ors. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010171072018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5469/2018

¶5

PHULENDRA NARAYAN KONWAR AND 2 ORS.

¶6

SON OF LATE KUMUD NARAYAN KONWAR, VILLAGE- CHOTOATHIABARI, P.O. BORDOULGURI, P.S. SIPAJHAR, DISTRICT- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN784145

¶7

2: DIGAMBAR BAISHYA S/O. LATE LAIRAM BAISHYA VILLAGE ABHAYPUR P.O. GERUA P.S. HAJO DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781102

¶8

3: SMTI. JAYANTI GOGOI VILLAGE- 2 NO. RAMU GAON (SIMALUGURI) P.O. AND P.S. SIMALUGURI DISTRICT- SIVSAGAR ASSAM PIN- 78568

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE ASSAM STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. AND 5 ORS. ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-7.

¶11

2:THE DIRECTOR CHAIRMAN

¶12

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ASSAM STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7.

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

¶15

ASSAM STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7.

¶16

4:THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ASSAM LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI-1.

¶17

5:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 6:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BHAGABATI

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶22

Order

¶23

29-04.2022

¶24

Heard Mr. M Bhagawati, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G Bordoloi, learned standing counsel for the Co-operation Department.

¶25

This writ petition is filed before this Court praying for directions to set aside and quash the termination Order dated 22.09.2009 passed by the Board

¶26

Page No.# 3/6

¶27

of Directors, Assam State Co-Operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited, respondent No. 2 and prays for a similar Order as passed in that common Judgment and order dated 25.10.2017 in WP(C) No.5652/2009 and connected cases.

¶28

The petitioners were appointed as Grade III & IV employees in the ASCARD Bank in the year 1993 and their services were duly regularised later on. Consequent to a decision dated 10.2.1999 taken by the Board of Directors of the Bank, services of 321 numbers. of employees including that of petitioners were terminated declaring them to be ‘Excess Employees’ by several termination orders putting them in different groups. Consequently several writ petitioners were filed by the above employees challenging the above termination orders. A group of these writ petitions were heard analogously by this Court and by a common judgment dated 25.9.2002 these petitions were allowed by setting aside the termination orders.

¶29

Several writ appeals were preferred by the bank challenging the validity of the above common judgment. A group of several writ appeals were heard analogously, by the Hon’ble Appellate court and the said appeals were disposed of by a Common Judgment dated 6.11.2003. By the above judgment the Appellate court upheld the above common judgment dated 25.9.2002. The respondent Bank preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court and by order dated 05.04.2007, the Hon’ble Apex court expressed its full agreement with the view taken by this Court in the above judgments.

¶30

Page No.# 4/6

¶31

Thereafter vide order dated 22.10.2009 the petitioners were declared as excess employees and their services were terminated by the said orders w.e.f. 22.10.2009. Alongwith the orders an account payee cheque was enclosed as their salaries for 3 months in lieu of 3 months notice. Similar termination orders were issued to as many as 265 employees of the bank.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the orders of termination, a large number of similarly situated persons had approached this Court by filing a number of writ application praying for setting aside and quashing the decision of the respondent No. 2 dated 22.9.2009 and the consequential termination order dated 22.10.2009 issued by the respondent No. 3.

¶33

By order dated 25.10.2017 passed in WP(C) 5652/2009 and connected cases, this court set aside the decision of Board of Directors dated 22.9.2009 and termination order dated 22.10.2009 declaring the same to be arbitrary.

¶34

The petitioners being on the same footing to that of the petitioners of WP(C) No. 5652/2009 and other cases prays for similar order passed by this court on 25.10.2017 in WP(C) No 5652/2009 etc cases.

¶35

The paragraph Nos. 23,24 and 25 of the said judgment passed in WP(C) 5652/2009 and connected cases can gainfully be quoted hereinbelow, the present petitioners being exactly similarly situated with those petitioners in WP(C) 5652/2009 and other connected writ petitions:

¶36

“23. As stated above, the present case does not deal with any inconsistency of law

¶37

Page No.# 5/6

¶38

between the law made by the Parliament and the State legislature. The Employees Staff Rule, 1998 is not a law made by the State legislature. Further in view of Section 25-J of the Act, the retrenchment/termination of the petitioners h ad to be done by following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, as had been directed by this Court in the earlier cases. The retrenchment/termination of t he petitioners could not have been done under Rule 131 of the Employees’ Staff Rule, 1998.

¶39

A perusal of the termination order dt: 22-10-2009 shows that the employees of the respondent bank had been terminated due to Bank’s dire financial condition, which led it to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Bank, Govt. of Assam and NABARD on 01-10-1994. As per the MOU, the respondent bank was to drastically reduce its staff as it was not in a position to pay their salary regularly. The above ground for terminating the services of the petitioners, vide the orders dt: 22-102009, was also the ground for the earlier termination orders dt: 25-02-1999, which was set aside by this Court. The above however does not take away the fact that prior to the termination/retrenchment of the petitioners, the respondent bank will have to comply with the directions and observations made by this Court in WP (C) No. 1417 of 1999, W.A. No. 721 of 2009 and W. A. No. 722 of 2009, which has attained finality.

¶40

In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the impugned orders dated 22.10.2009 terminating the services of the 265 numbers of employees is arbitrary and is accordingly set aside. The decision of the Board of Directors dated 22.09.2009 is also set aside. If the respondents decide to retrench/terminate the petitioners’ services, they will have to comply with section 25-F of the Act. The import of the direction to comply with Section 25-F of the Act requires the petitioners to be re-instated back into service, which should be done by the respondents at the earliest.”

¶41

It is submitted by Mr. Bhagawati, learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid judgment and connected judgments were put to challenge by the Bank before the Hon’ble Division Bench and the Hon’ble Division Bench by its judgment dated 04.02.2022 passed in WA 21/2022 and other connected cases

¶42

Page No.# 6/6

¶43

upheld the said judgments.

¶44

In view of the aforesaid facts, this writ petition is disposed of in term of the aforesaid paragraph Nos. 23,24 and 25 passed in WP(C) 5652/2009 and connected cases by setting aside the impugned orders of termination of the services of the petitioners.

¶45

This writ petition is allowed in terms of the said observation and in terms of the paragraph Nos. 23,24 and 25 of the judgment dated 25.10.2017 passed in WP(C) 5652/2009 and connected cases.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Comparing Assistant

Phulendra Narayan Konwar and 2 Ors. v. the Assam State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phulendra Narayan Konwar and 2 Ors. v. the Assam State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joysree Kuli Vs the State Level Committee and 4 Ors.

Kamini Kachari Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sultana Begum Mazumder Vs Syedain Abbasi, IAS and 2 Ors.

Madhab Ch. Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Prabin Talukdar Vs Rajesh Kempray

Marsel Narah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.