Allowed

Md Mustakim Ansari And Ors. v. Co. Operative

Jharkhand HC28 Nov 2022WPC/6160/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an administrative order refusing payment to paid managers of cooperative banks. Ruling that State grants form part of the payment fund, the Court directed the State to allocate funds and the bank to pay arrears, aligning with its precedent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Secretary directed to allocate funds; Chief Executive Officer of cooperative bank directed to release payment within 3 months.

Md Mustakim Ansari And Ors. Vs Co. Operative — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 5986 of 2015

¶3

Digambar Rai Son of Sri Uchit Rai, Resident of Village Nawadih, P.O. & P.S. Piplo (Tisri), District Giridih.

¶4

Sadanand Prasad Rai, Son of Laljit Prasad Rai, Resident of Village Kairidih, P.O. & P.S. Deori, District Giridih

¶5

Deoki Nandan Kushwaha Son of Late Jagdish Sharan Kushwaha, Resident of Village Shishodih, P.O. Sirsia, P.S. Giridih (M), District Giridih. … … Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi- 4, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶8

Principal Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi- 4, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶9

Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi- 4, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶10

Managing Director, Giridih Central Cooperative Bank, Baxidih Road, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih.

¶11

Director, Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi- 4, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi … … Respondents

¶12

¶13

With

¶14

W.P.(S) No. 6160 of 2015

¶15

Md Mustakim Ansari, Son of Late Matwar Mian Resident of Village- Pathuria, P.O- Sarkardih Police Station- Govindpur, Disrict- Dhanbad

¶16

Kishun Vishkarma, Son of Late Harkhu vishkarma Resident of Village- Govindpur, Dharmsala Road P.O and P.S- Govinpur, District- Dhanbad.

¶17

Sahdeo Sen, Son of Late Hadi Ram Sen Resident of Village- Govindpur (Beside High School), PO & P.SGovindpur, District- Dhanbad

¶18

Shanker Prasad, Son of Late Nand Prasad Resident of Village- Madarpala P.O- Polytechnic, P.S- Bank More, District- Dhanbad

¶19

Md. Eyakub Kazi @ Md. Yakub Ali, Son of Late Ali Nawaz Kazi Resident of Village- Nawatand P.O- Nagarkyari P.S- Govindpur District- Dhanbad

¶20

Sakhi Ahmad, Son of Late Kalimuddin Ansari Resident of Village- Govindadih, P.O- Bagdaha, P.S- Rajgang, District- Dhanbad

¶21

Kartik Chandra Mistri @ Kartick Chandra Mistry, Son of Late Mahru Mistri Resident of Village- Madandih, P.O- Barkhandia P.S. – Nirsa, District- Dhanbad.

¶22

Buddhadeo Pandey @ Budhdeo Pandey, Son of late Ram Satya Pandey Resident of Village- Dholabud P.O- Motho P.S- Baliapur DistrictDhanbad

¶23

Rameshwar Saw, Son of Sri Jagbandhu Saw

¶24

¶25

Village And P.O And P.S- Topchanchi, District- Dhanbad

¶26

… … Petitioners

¶27

Versus

¶28

The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O., P.S- Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶29

The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of Co-Operative, Project Building P.O P.S- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.

¶30

Director, Co-operative Societies Govt of Jharkhand Project Building, P.O., P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi

¶31

Managing Director, The Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, P.O, P.S and District- Dhanbad

¶32

… … Respondents

¶33

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶34

In W.P.(S) No. 5986 of 2015

¶35

For the Petitioners : Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate For the Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate For the Resp. – State : Ms. Pinky Tiwary, A.C. to A.G.

¶36

In W.P.(S) No. 6160 of 2015

¶37

For the Petitioners : Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate ---

¶38

18 /28.11.2022

¶39

W.P.(S) No. 5986 of 2015

¶40

1. Heard Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶41

2. Heard Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 and at the outset he submits that as of now, the Respondent bank, namely, Giridih Central Cooperative Bank, has merged with Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Limited.

¶42

3. Heard Ms. Pinky Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State.

¶43

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶44

“A. For quashing of order dated 01.08.2013 vide Memo no. 1976 issued under the seal and signature of the Principal Secretary (Respondent no. 2) (Annexure- 4) by which he has refused to pay the admitted arrears of salary and other allowances to the petitioners, even though the Respondent no. 3 has admitted it and he has directed to pay all the dues by issuing letter no. 5/SAKH (BIDHI)-7/2012/SAH 3005, dated 20.10.2012 (Annexure- 2).

¶45

AND

¶46

¶47

B. Petitioners further pray for direction to the concerned respondent for payment of admitted arrears of salary and other allowance along with interest @ 18% on the admitted dues, which is pending before the respondent no. 4.”

¶48

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

¶49

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had moved this Court earlier in W.P.(S) No. 6655 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.12.2011 and direction was issued to the Secretary, Cooperative Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi to consider the said writ petition as a representation and pass appropriate order as per law.

¶50

6. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the writ court, the then Secretary of Cooperative Department passed order dated 19.10.2012 wherein a direction was issued to the Managing Director, Giridih Central Cooperative Bank to send the details of the pending dues of paid managers for the working period giving the further details separately relating to the period before creation of State of Jharkhand and after creation of State of Jharkhand so that appropriate allocation of fund by way of grant-in-aid as per the budget may be made by the State Government for payment of their amount. He submits that the aforesaid authority had also directed all the managing directors of the various cooperative banks of other districts also to give the details of dues with regard to the paid managers. Pursuant to the order dated 19.10.2012, a list was prepared and the name of the petitioners appeared at Sl. Nos. 71, 58 and 36 respectively showing the dues as Rs. 2,57,261/-; Rs. 2,32,806/-; and Rs. 1,82,565.50 respectively.

¶51

7. The learned counsel further submits that on account of noncompliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court in the writ petition, a contempt case was filed being Cont. Case (C) No. 696 of 2012 and one show-cause was filed in the said contempt case wherein the order dated 19.10.2012 was annexed. Subsequently, one interlocutory application was filed in the contempt case and the order dated 19.10.2012 was shown to have been kept in abeyance stating that it was not in accordance with the rules, regulations, policies and Government enforceable orders, etc. Ultimately, the impugned order

¶52

¶53

dated 01.08.2013 has been passed wherein the earlier order passed by the Secretary of the Cooperative Department dated 19.10.2012 has been withdrawn, interalia , on the ground that the petitioners are not employees of the State Government nor the employees of the cooperative bank.

¶54

8. The learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order dated 01.08.2013 is ex-facie illegal. He submits that merely because the petitioners are not employees of the State Government or the cooperative bank, the same does not mean that the petitioners will not be entitled for payment. He has also referred to various orders passed by this Court including the judgement passed in W.P.(S) No. 6760 of 2013 in the case of “Dhiren Kumar Mandal Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others” reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 523 wherein the Managing Director, Deoghar-Jamtara Central Cooperative Bank Limited was directed to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period he had worked as paid manager.

¶55

9. He submits that the judgement passed in the case of Dhiren Kumar Mandal (Supra) was challenged in LPA No. 418 of 2019 and ultimately, the said appeal was dismissed against which special leave petition was also dismissed. He has also relied upon a judgement passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3279 of 2011 decided on 03.08.2022 wherein the successor namely Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Limited was directed to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioners of the said case and considering the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 1232 of 2016 dated 23.10.2019, it was made permissible for the Bank to adjust the payment so made against the grant-in-aid received from the State Government. The learned counsel submits that the judgement passed in the case of Dhiren Kumar Mandal (Supra) has ultimately attained finality as the SLP against the same was already dismissed.

¶56

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that numerous such orders were passed by this Court including the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 1232 of 2016 disposed of on 23.10.2019; order dated 09.01.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5033 of 2012 and thereafter, order dated 17.06.2022 in W.P.(S) No. 1848 of 2012.

¶57

¶58

11. The learned counsel has also submitted that the respondent no. 2, while passing the impugned order dated 01.08.2013, has referred to one order being memo no. 861 dated 01.04.2011 which in turn was passed by the then secretary of the cooperative department pursuant to order passed in another writ petition being WPS NO. 5384 of 2008 . It has been stated in the impugned order that the claim of the petitioners of the said case was rejected on the basis of government enforceable order contained in circular no. 503 dated 31.05.1989. However, the memo no. 861 dated 01.04.2011 is a part of the connected writ petition being WP (S ) No. 6160 of 2015 which has been brought on record along with the counter-affidavit in the said case. The connected writ petition also contains the order contained in memo no. 1106 dated 10.05.2011 passed pursuant to another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5491 of 2008 (Ram Jagi Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others) . The learned counsel has also submitted that upon perusal of the order contained in Memo No. 1106 dated 10.05.2011, it appears that the paid managers, though are paid from the cadre fund, but one of the components of the cadre fund is the aid granted from the State Government.

¶59

Arguments on behalf of the Respondents

¶60

12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentBank has submitted that the case of Dhiren Kumar Mandal (Supra) was of Deoghar-Jamtara Central Cooperative Bank and the present case is that of Giridih Central Cooperative Bank, both have merged into the Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank. The learned counsel, however, does not dispute that the judgement passed in the case of Dhiren Kumar Mandal (Supra) has attained finality upto Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶61

13. However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel has referred to the various judgements including the judgement reported in (1998) 8 SCC 218 (State of Bihar and Others Vs. Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabandhak Seva Sangh, Patna and Others) to submit that at the relevant point of time, there was an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connection with the paid managers wherein the paid managers were to be taken into government service after appearing in a recruitment test and those who passed the

¶62

¶63

recruitment test, were ultimately absorbed in government service. The learned counsel submits that only the paid managers who were absorbed, became government servants.

¶64

14. The learned counsel has further referred to judgement passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 378 of 2006 decided on 29.02.2008 and has submitted that the said judgement related to enhancement of age of retirement of the paid managers from 58 years to 60 years, but the relief was denied on the ground that the paid managers are not the employees of the State Government. He has submitted that in the earlier judgement passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 1993 (3) PLJR 110 (Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabandhak Sangh Vs. The State of Bihar), the claim for dearness allowance was considered by Hon’ble Patna High Court and in the said case, it was held that the managers of PACS cannot be called the State Government employees and they are the employees of the cooperative societies. He has referred to paragraph 7 of the said judgement. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgement passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6760 of 2013 in the case of Dhiren Kumar Mandal (Supra) decided on 28.01.2016 which was upheld in LPA No. 418 of 2019 and does not dispute the fact that in the said judgement ultimately the managing director of Deoghar Jamatara Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Deoghar was directed to pay the salary of the petitioner of that case. He has also relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3022 of 2013 decided on 16.06.2014 and has submitted that in the said case, the paid managers under the district cadre cooperative society in the district of Chaibasa, West Singhbhum sought a direction upon the State for release of fund for payment of their salary and other allowances, but this Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition by holding that the State may have in its wisdom chosen to release grant from time to time depending upon consideration of facts relevant for such decision and that petitioners did not have any legal right to claim release of fund for payment of their salary by the State Government as they are not State Government employees rather paid managers who were working under cooperative society in question.

¶65

15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, has submitted that if the earlier order passed by the

¶66

¶67

Secretary dated 19.10.2012 is sustained by this Court and the impugned order is set-aside, the State would consider the release of grant-in-aid for payment of the paid managers and take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶68

Findings of this Court

¶69

16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the petitioners had moved this Court earlier in W.P.(S) No. 6655 of 2011 and the grievance of the petitioners was to be considered by the Secretary of the Cooperative Department. Pursuant thereto, an order dated 19.10.2012 was passed by the then Secretary who had directed the managing director of the cooperative banks including the respondent cooperative bank , to give the details of the payable amount to the petitioners after obtaining the required details from the concerned cooperative societies and also give the bifurcation of the due amount prior to creation of State of Jharkhand and post creation of State of Jharkhand so that appropriate allotment may be made by the State Government.

¶70

17. This Court finds that the impugned order dated 01.08.2013 has been passed by referring to the various orders passed by the department itself and also the circular no. 503 dated 31.05.1989 on the basis of which certain orders were passed by the respondents including the order no. 1106 dated 10.05.2011 which has been filed in the connected record. Upon perusal of the order no. 1106 dated 10.05.2011, this Court finds that it has been clearly recorded therein as follows:

¶71

“It is not out of place to mention that the payment PACS/LAMPS Managers is based upon their work performance as per the order no- 503 dated 31.05.1989 of Department of Co-operation, Govt. of Bihar. The Para no- 4 of the aforesaid letter clarifies that the payment of salary of co-operative Managers would be made from the cadre fund established under every District Co-operative Bank. This Cadre Fund is supposed to be created with some percentage contribution from the financing and the recovery from the PACS/LAMPS of the concerned Co-operative Managers along with the grants from the State Govt.”

¶72

18. Thus, upon perusal of the aforesaid order, this Court finds that

¶73

it is not in dispute that payment to the paid managers has to be made

¶74

¶75

from the cadre fund established under every district cooperative bank and the same is supposed to be created with some percentage contribution from the financing and recovery from the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society/Large Area Multi-Purpose Society of the concerned cooperative managers along with the grant from the State Government. Thus, this Court finds that the grant of the State Government is an important component of the cadre fund from which the payment is to be made to the paid managers.

¶76

19. Upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Cooperation dated 01.08.2013 recalling earlier order dated 19.10.2012, it is apparent that the same has been passed on the premise that the paid managers are neither government employees nor the employees of District Central Cooperative Banks. However, the said authority while recalling the order dated 19.10.2012, has not considered the fact that as per the order dated 19.10.2012, the then Secretary had neither held that the paid managers were employees of the State Government nor held that the paid managers were the employees of the cooperative bank. Rather, the then Secretary while passing the order dated 19.10.2012 had simply directed the managing directors of the cooperative banks to give the details of the amount which was due in connection with payment to the paid managers so that appropriate allocation as per the budget could be made. Upon perusal of the aforesaid component of the cadre fund, it is apparent that grants from State is one of the important components of the source of fund for payment to the paid managers. Thus, the order dated 19.10.2012 cannot be said to be an order which casts any obligation on the State Government to make payment to the paid managers by way of salary by the State Government or by the cooperative bank. The order dated 19.10.2012 was for the purposes of getting the details of the dues of the paid managers so that there could be a budgetary allocation of fund by the state government as apparently grant from state is one of the important sources of fund to pay the paid managers. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 01.08.2013, by which the order dated 19.10.2012 has been recalled primarily on the ground that paid managers are neither the employees

¶77

¶78

of the state government nor the employees of the district central cooperative bank, has ignored the contents and import of the circular no. 503 dated 31.05.1989. Merely because details of the dues for allocation of budgetary allocation were called for, the same by itself does not make the paid managers employee of the state or the cooperative bank but essentially order dated 19.10.2012 was for seeking budgetary allocation so that grants could be allocated and released by the state. The impugned order has wrongly held that the previous order dated 19.10.2012 passed pursuant to order passed in WP(S) No. 6655 of 2011 was incorrect, illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and inconsistent to previous order passed in similar case.

¶79

20. This Court is of the considered view that merely because the respondents claim that the paid managers are neither the employees of the State Government nor the employees of the district central cooperative banks, the State cannot absolve its responsibility totally. This is in view of the fact that the fund from which they are to be paid, interalia, includes fund from the State Government by way of grant-inaid as is mentioned in the circular no. 503 dated 31.05.1989.

¶80

21. In paragraphs 24 and 27 of the judgement passed by this Court reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 110 (Supra) , this Court held that the main objection of the respondents seemed to be lack of fund of the various PACS but the same could not be a consideration for denying the petitioners a pay which was fair and reasonable and the soul of guarantee epitomised in Article 14 is fairness coupled with reason. This Court, in paragraph 27 of the aforesaid judgement had also held that the paid managers were virtually doing the State function and the cooperative societies were also discharging important state functions and were virtually acting as an extended arm of the State and the mere technical objection that the petitioners were not State Government employees, did not find favour with the Court.

¶81

22. This Court also finds that in the case of Dhiren Kumar Mandal (Supra) , which related to Deoghar Jamtara Central Cooperative Bank, a direction was issued to the managing director of the bank to release the payment to the petitioner and such direction was sustained by this Court in LPA No. 418 of 2019 by referring to other orders passed by this Court and SLP against the same was also dismissed. Apart from

¶82

¶83

the fact that the petitioners claim to be working in the district of Giridih where the Giridih Central Cooperative Bank Limited was functioning, no other distinction has been drawn regarding the status of paid managers as compared to the paid managers working under Deoghar Jamatara Central Cooperative Bank Limited.

¶84

23. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 01.08.2013 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Cooperation recalling the order dated 19.10.2012 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly set-aside.

¶85

24. This Court also finds that the order dated 19.10.2012 by which the Secretary of the cooperative department had asked the various cooperative banks to submit the details of the payment due to the petitioners/paid managers working under different cooperative societies so that appropriate allocation of fund as per the budget could be made, was in accordance with law in view of the fact that the fund from which the petitioners were to be paid included grant-in-aid from the State Government. It further appears that pursuant to order dated 19.10.2012, the necessary details have already been forwarded, but the same could not be taken to a logical end in view of the impugned order dated 01.08.2013 which recalled the order dated 19.10.2012.

¶86

25. Accordingly, this Court having set-aside the order dated 01.08.2013 directs the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative ( the successor of Department of cooperation having merged with other departments ) to take appropriate steps within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so that further action be taken in terms of the order dated 19.10.2012 for seeking budgetary allocation for release of grant for the respondent cooperative bank or its successor in interest. It is expected that the Government would take a humane approach and also consider the fact that the fund from which the payment was to be made to the paid managers, included grants from the state government as per the circular no. 503 dated 31.05.1989.

¶87

26. Considering the judgement passed in the case of Dhiren Kumar Mandal (Supra) [which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench against which SLP has already been dismissed ] wherein a

¶88

¶89

direction was issued to the cooperative bank to make payment, there can be no reason to have a different approach so far as the present writ petitioners are concerned. It is not in dispute that a number of similar directions have been made in different writ petitions from time of time.

¶90

27. Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer, Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank is directed to release the admissible amount subject to verification of work done by the petitioners within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to be produced by the petitioners along with a representation and a copy of the writ records. Considering the order passed in WP(S) No. 1232 of 2016 dated 23.10.2019, it would be permissible for the respondent bank to adjust the payment so made against the grant-in-aid received from the state government.

¶91

28. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶92

29. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶93

W.P.(S) No. 6160 of 2015

¶94

30. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶95

31. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶96

“(A) For quashing of order dated 01.08.13 vide Memo No 1976 issued by under the seal and signature of the Principal Secretary (Herein after referred to as Respondent No-2) (ANNEXURE-9) by which he has refused to pay admitted arrears of salaries and other allowances to the petitioners although earlier secretary has admitted the arrears and directed to pay all the dues vide issuing Letter No5/sakh/(bidhi)-7/2012 sah 3005/Ranchi dated 20/10/12 (ANNEXURE-7).

¶97

(B) To pay admitted all the arrears of Salary and other allowances which is due and pending to Managing Director, Dhanbad central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Dhanbad (Respondent No-4)

¶98

(C) Further prays for direction to pay 18% interest on admitted dues till the payment of dues.”

¶99

32. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have challenged the order dated 01.08.2013 in the present case in view of the fact that the same has nullified the order dated 19.10.2012 passed pursuant to order passed in W.P.(S) NO. 6655 of

¶100

¶101

2011 wherein a general direction was issued to all the managing directors of the district cooperative banks to give the details of the pending payments with regard to the paid managers working under the various cooperative societies. He has also submitted that though the petitioners of the present case were neither the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 6655 of 2011 nor they were working with Giridih Central Cooperative Bank who was respondent in W.P.(S) No. 6655 of 2011, but the general order dated 19.10.2012 was applicable to the petitioners who were paid managers within the jurisdiction of the Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank. The learned counsel has also submitted that the amount payable to the petitioners has also been quantified which has been brought on record by filing a supplementary affidavit.

¶102

33. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to paragraph 28 of the writ petition which is quoted as under:

¶103

“28. That the Pacs Managers are being paid salaries through the managerial allowances allotted to the Co-operative societies and he can not stop all allowances or refuse the salaries suddenly and even he can not flee away from his responsibilities that the packs managers have worked in the Co-Operative Societies under the assurance given by the Government to pay their salaries.”

¶104

34. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank has submitted that the said bank has not merged with the Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank and there is a dispute between the bank and the State and the matter is sub judice before this Court. He has also submitted that on account of the dispute with the State, no grant-in-aid is being released to the respondent – Bank. The learned counsel has submitted that if the State Government decides to release the fund pursuant to any action which may be taken as per order dated 19.10.2012, the bank will have no objection in making such payment to the petitioners. The learned counsel has also submitted that since the order dated 01.08.2013 has been set-aside in the connected writ petition being WPS No.5986 of 2015, no further order need be passed in the present case in view of the fact that the foundational detail in connection with the petitioners is absent. The petitioners have not even approached the respondent – Bank for redressal of any of their grievances.

¶105

¶106

35. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentState has defended the impugned order dated 01.08.2013 by referring to the counter-affidavit filed in the present case and has submitted that the petitioners being the paid managers are neither the employees of the State nor the employees of the cooperative bank, rather they are the employees of the cooperative society and he has submitted that in such circumstances, the impugned order nullifying the earlier order dated 19.10.2012 is justified. However, during the course of argument the learned counsel for the respondent – State is not in a position to point out any finding in order dated 19.10.2012 whereby the paid managers have been declared to be or treated to be as an employee of the State Government or an employee of the cooperative bank.

¶107

36. During the course of argument, while going through the order dated 19.10.2012, it is clear that the then Secretary of the cooperative department of the state while complying with the order passed by this court in W.P.(S) NO. 6655 of 2011, had simply directed the managing directors of the various cooperative banks to forward the details regarding the dues payable so that appropriate allocation of fund could be made through budget.

¶108

37. It is further not in dispute from the side of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that as per their own circular as quoted in memo no. 1106 dated 10.05.2011 passed pursuant to the order passed in the case of “Ram Jagi Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others” being W.P.(C) No. 5491 of 2008 , wherein the respondents have themselves mentioned the contents of circular no. 503 dated 31.05.1989, the component of cadre fund includes grant-inaid from the State Government.

¶109

38. In the aforesaid circumstances, the action of the then Secretary while passing the order dated 19.10.2012 asking the Managing Directors of the cooperative societies to forward the details with regard to the amount payable to the paid managers for the purposes of budgetary allocation, cannot be said to be contrary to any guideline or circular of the State Government. Merely because the paid managers are said to be neither employees of the State nor employees of the cooperative bank, that by itself does not invalidate the order dated 19.10.2012 as has been done by the impugned order dated 01.08.2013.

¶110

¶111

A detailed order has been passed in the connected writ petition being WPS No.5986 of 2015 while quashing the impugned order dated 01.08.2013 and therefore the impugned order dated 01.08.2013 does not survive any more.

¶112

39. This Court also finds that the two distinguishing features with respect to the Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank and other banks as stated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank are firstly , that the other banks have merged with the Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank and Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank has not yet merged and Secondly , it is the argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – Bank that State is not giving any grant-in-aid to the Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank for the payment of PACS managers.

¶113

40. However, the fact remains that the circular no. 503 dated 31.05.1989 clearly indicates that one of the components of the funds for payment to the paid managers will be by way of grant-in-aid from the State Government and therefore, the dispute between the respondent –cooperative bank and the State cannot be an impediment in release of any fund by way of grant –in-aid to the respondent – cooperative bank. The dispute between the respondent bank and the state does not make the case of the petitioners (paid managers) different from that of the paid managers who had worked under different district cooperative banks now merged with Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank. Further, there appears to be no discernable reasons for the State to treat the respondent cooperative bank differently from other district cooperative banks (now merged with Jharkhand state cooperative bank) at least in the matter of grant in aid for payment to paid managers in terms of circular no. 503 dated 31.05.1989.

¶114

41. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to take a different view with regard to the present petitioners, other than the view taken in the case of “Dhiren Kumar Mandal Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others” reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 523 and followed in subsequent judgements including in the connected with petition being WP(S) No.5986 of 2015.

¶115

42. The petitioners are directed to approach the respondent – cooperative bank with their claim by filing a representation along with

¶116

¶117

a copy of this order and a copy of the writ records and the respondent – Bank, upon verification and being satisfied with the period of work rendered by the petitioners, shall make the payment to the petitioners and the amount so paid will be adjustable against the grant-in-aid which may be released by the State Government in terms of circular no. 503 dated 31.05.1989 read with order passed in the connected writ petition being WP(S) No.5986 of 2015.

¶118

43. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶119

44. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶120

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶121

Pankaj

Md Mustakim Ansari And Ors. v. Co. Operative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md Mustakim Ansari And Ors. v. Co. Operative

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

Satyanarayan Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Amrendra Kumar Vs Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma the Secretary Dept of School Education and Literacy

Prabhat Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Anjani Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Rameshwar Rai And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ram Prasad Paswan Vs Bharat Cocking Coal Limited through Its Chariman Cum Managing Director