Allowed

State of Hp v. Manoj Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Dec 2019LPA/190/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the State's appeal and quashed the Single Judge's order directing adjustment of Cooperative Federation employees. The Court held that no legal right exists for such employees to be absorbed by the State, as they are not State employees, despite the Federation's liquidation.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the judgment dated 16.5.2015 of the learned Single Judge. Appeal disposed of.

State of Hp Vs Manoj Kumar — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

LPA No. 190 of 2015 Decided on 6.12.2019

¶3

State of Himachal Pradesh and another .…Appellants.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Sh. Manoj Kumar and others …. Respondents.

¶6

…………………………………………………………………………………… Coram

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the appellants : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Adarsh K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶10

For the respondents : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3.

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge (Oral)

¶12

State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated

¶13

16.5.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 6754 of 2012, whereby State was directed to adjust the petitioners, who were employees of the Palampur Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, District Kangra at par with the employees of Fish Federation, Bilaspur.

¶14

Facts in nutshell leading to filing of instant appeal are :-

¶15

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

¶17

2 (i). Petitioners were working as employees of Palampur Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited at Palampur.

¶18

2(ii). According to the petitioners :- the said Federation was put under liquidation in the year 2003 and Liquidators were appointed; petitioners thereafter started getting meagre salary of `3,000/- per month as against their regular salaries previously enjoyed by them; petitioners were eventually declared as surplus.

¶19

2 (iii). A decision was taken by the State Government on 12.4.1989 (Annexure P-1) in respect of adjustment of surplus staff of the District Federations and other Cooperative Institutions. It was decided that requirement of new recruitment of Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation should be met as far as possible, out of the surplus staff available with the Cooperative Institutions. Accordingly, the Director Food & Civil Supplies, Registrar Cooperative Societies and Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation were directed to take necessary action in the matter.

¶20

2(iv). Another communication dated 2/5.4.1989 (Annexure P-2) was addressed by Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh to all the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies and all the Managing Directors/Secretaries the Apex/District Cooperative M & C

¶21

¶22

Federation Ltd. directing them to send a list of surplus staff for taking further necessary action in the matter.

¶23

2(v). The specific grievance of the petitioners is that though pursuant to these two communications, respondent-State adjusted 22 surplus employees of Fish Federation, Bilaspur after the same was winded up and adjusted in Himachal Pradesh Fisheries Department vide Notification dated 8.1.2007, but the petitioners were discriminated and were not adjusted in the appropriate State Departments. They preferred their representations for the adjustment, which was rejected on 28.4.2012 (Annexure P-7).

¶24

Aggrieved against the rejection of their representations, writ petition was preferred by them, which has been allowed by learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 16.5.2015 directing the respondent-State to adjust the petitioners at par with the employees of Fish Federation. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, instant appeal has been preferred by the State Government.

¶25

3(i). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record.

¶26

3(ii). Learned Additional Advocate General has brought to our attention certain factual inaccuracies in the reply filed by the respondent-State to the writ petition, whereunder the liquidation of the Federation in question was admitted. According to him, this was a

¶27

¶28

factually incorrect pleading at the time, as the Federation in question was in existence. The corect position in this regard was reflected in reply filed by the State in CWP No.1387 of 2013 (Annexure A-2 appended along with the present appeal). As per this reply :- the Federation in question was never put under liquidation; it is a functional society, being managed by its duly elected Board of Directors.

¶29

3(iii). Learned Additional Advocate General has also brought to our notice a judgment dated 6.8.2008, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 640 of 2001 along with other connected matters, wherein it was held that directions cannot be issued to the State for granting employment to persons, who were being retrenched by the Consumer Societies since they were not employees of the Government or Government undertakings, but were the employees of Societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. It is appropriate to extract relevant portion from the judgment :-

¶30

“It appears that the factum that the appeal filed by the Union had been dismissed was not brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the learned Tribunal could not have issued any directions to the State to grant employment to persons who were being retrenched from the Consumer Societies since they were not employees of the Government or Government undertakings. They were the employees of Societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. If such societies are liquidated, the employee may suffer a hardship but this does not mean that the Court has jurisdiction to issue directions to the State that all the

¶31

¶32

employees should be given employment. In fact, the Apex Court finally gave no such direction.

¶33

In view of the above discussion, all the writ petitions are allowed and the orders of the learned Tribunal are setaside. We may, however, clarify that the State on its own can always consider a scheme for rehabilitation of the employees of the Societies but no directions in this behalf could have been given by the learned Tribunal or by this Court.”

¶34

Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has not brought

¶35

to our notice any judgment to the contrary. Just because some employees of Fish Federation have been adjusted by the State Government, will not give a legal right to the petitioners for the adjustment in the Government Departments. The petitioners cannot seek negative parity. Petitioners were employees of Palampur Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited and not of State Government. Latter cannot be compelled to absorb employees of Federation on the ground that Federation has gone into liquidation. Therefore, we find force in the contention of learned Additional Advocate General and accordingly allow this appeal. The Judgment passed by learned Single Judge dated 16.5.2015 is quashed and set aside.

¶36

Before parting with the judgment, we feel it appropriate to observe that respondent being a welfare State can always consider the rehabilitation of the employees of the Societies. It is for the State to consider and take appropriate decision in this regard.

¶37

¶38

With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of, so

¶39

also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶40

(L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice

¶41

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge

¶42

6^th December, 2019

¶43

(Guleria)

State of Hp v. Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrichand Narwani and Others Vs Municipal Corporation Shimla

Sanjay Kumar Sharma Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Another

Malkiat Singh Vs Hrtc and Others

Narender Thakur Vs Central University of Hp and Others

Kulwinder Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Surya Kumari Vs State of Hp