IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHADNRAIAH W.P. No.17406 of 2001 Between: M.L.N.S.D.Prasada Rao and others. … Petitioners and The Registrar of Coop.Societies, Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHADNRAIAH W.P. No.17406 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners eleven in number seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not including the petitioners in the panel of paid Secretaries (decaderised secretaries) in their junior most places as done in the cases of other similarly situated candidates vide Proceedings Rc.No.3770/96A, dated 18.06.1999 and Proceedings dated 22.06.1999 on the file of the respondents 2 and 4 respectively as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from contrary to the provisions of A.P.C.S. Act and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to all the benefits given to the other similarly situated candidates vide above said proceedings from the date of their promotion to the post of Secretary. The petitioners also filed W.P.M.P. No.23792 of 2011 seeking to direct the respondents to fill up the 25% of the vacancies from among the eligible PACS employees including the petitioners. Having regard to the relief sought for in the writ petition and as well as in the W.P.M.P. No.23792 of 2011, the main writ petition itself is disposed of as under: Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were initially appointed in their respective cadres of various posts in the Societies and at present they have been working as Secretaries since from the date of their promotion. Though they have been working continuously as Secretaries, discharging the duties and functions of the post of Chief Executive of the Society, they have not given equal treatment along with other Secretaries, who were appointed under the Half a Million Job Scheme, though the entire nature of work duties, functions etc., particularly qualifications, are one and the same and the only distinctive lies is in the nature of appointment only. As per the service Regulations, the post of Secretary is prescribed to be filled up in two ways; one is by way of direct recruitment; and another is by way of promotion of in service employees. Apart from the above, the cadre of existing Secretary, as on 01.09.1985, were abolished and all the Secretaries whose cadre was so abolished and de-categorised, were existed and posted as permanent Secretaries into the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies, as such, at present, there exist two kinds of Secretaries namely Paid Secretaries (whose cadre was abolished), and promotion of in service candidates. But the fact remains is that all the Secretaries are one and the same, once they are appointed as Secretaries, there is no distinction at anywhere, except with regard to the exemption of Educational Qualifications in favour of the de-categorised Secretaries. It is submitted that the 1st respondent, in fact, has also issued orders vide Circular Memo Rc.No.49920/86-C2B, dated 30.08.1986 and another one dated 04.07.1989 on the aspect of benefits given to the Secretaries. As per the above orders, the Secretaries, appointed by the Management of the Society, are also eligible for the service benefits available to the de-caderised Secretaries apart from that the 1st respondent having been empowered under the A.P.C.S. Act vide Proceedings dated 07.08.1986, issued instructions to all the concerned to the effect that the Secretaries appointed by the Societies are also regulated by the service conditions of the employees of the P.A.C.S. and the District Collectors were requested to allot the decaderised Secretaries only to the Societies which were earlier provided with the cadre of Secretaries and as such leaving the Societies where board Secretaries were working. It is further case of the petitioner that four persons namely Sri M.V.S.Narasimha Sastry, 2) Sri D.Ganga Raju, 3) Sri K.V.v.R.Trimurthulu and 4) Sri P.Adinarayana Murthy were similarly promoted to the post of Secretary and when they were not placed in the panel of decaderised Secretaries, they filed W.P.No.996 of 1997 and batch and upon directions issued by this Court, they were included in the panel of paid Secretaries in the junior most places and in fact, the 2nd respondent has specifically issued proceedings Rc.No.3770/96A, dated 18.06.1999 directing that the said persons included in the panel of paid Secretaries have to be paid salaries as per the Government Memo dated 14.10.1991 and they should be allowed to avail all the benefits awarded in respect of decaderised Secretaries. In fact, the District Cooperative Central Bank issued Proceedings dated 22.06.1999 including them in the panel of paid Secretaries. Therefore, the petitioners submitted that though they are situated in the same pattern as that of aforesaid four individuals, the petitioners have not been given same benefit of inclusion in the panel of paid Secretaries for further benefits, just for the reason that they have not approached this Court and obtained directions. Except this, there is no variation between the petitioners and the said four individuals and this kind of action on the part of the respondents is liable to be declared as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that in view of the proceedings issued in favour of other board Secretaries, now they were included in the panel, along with the paid Secretaries and they have been given benefits and they are also going to be considered for selection to the post of V Category employees of D.C.C. Bank. Even though the petitioners are similarly situated, they have been denied said benefit just for the reason that they have not approached this Court and in fact, the petitioners are senior to that of the Board Secretaries included in the panel along with paid Secretaries. If they are considered, ignoring the petitioners, the petitioners will be loosing the opportunity of getting promotion or selection to the post of V Category while their juniors, who are included in the panel, are going to get benefit, in the even of which, the petitioners are put to suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Petitioners also filed W.P.M.P. No.23792 of 2011 stating that the Government of A.P. has issued G.O.Ms.No.106, Agriculture & Cooperation (Coop.VI) Department dated 18.04.2008 fixing the scales of pay to the paid Secretaries to the decaderised paid Secretaries. Subsequently, the Government of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.67, Agriculture & Cooperation Department dated 20.02.2009 directing to revert the decaderised paid Secretaries to constitute a special category of Assistants and draw the scale of pay as fixed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.106 dated 18.04.2008 from the date of joining the District Cooperative Central Bank. In terms of G.O.Ms.No.67, Agriculture & Cooperation Department, dated 20.02.2009, all the paid Secretaries were reconstituted as Special Cadre Assistants and drawing the scale of pay as fixed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.106, dated 18.04.2008. It is also submitted that there are number of cadre-V posts in the District Cooperative Central Bank, Kakinada, East Godavari District, even after the recategorization of the paid Secretaries as Special Cadre Assistants. Since the petitioners do not belong to the paid Secretaries under G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 20.02.2009, they were not recategorized as Special Cadre Assistant, although, they are performing the same duties on par with the paid Secretaries. In fact, after the paid Secretaries were redesignated as Special Cadre Assistants, they have been working as Secretaries of the Board of Management of the PACS. It is further submitted that the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, communicated vide letter Rc.No.4819/2007/PACS/General, dated 30.06.2008 on the issue raised by the various employees Unions and the Cooperative Societies employees in the State of Andhra Pradesh, with regard to the specific issue of filling up of V cadre posts in District Cooperative Central Bank with the employees of PACS other than the paid Secretaries, it was clarified that a decision would be taken to consider the Board Secretaries and other employees of the PACS to fill up the vacancies under the V cadre in District Cooperative Central Bank. In spite of such decision taken and communicated to the Government of A.P. by the Commissioner for Cooperation, vide letter Rc.No.4819/2007/PACS/General, dated 30.06.2008, no decision has been taken to consider the employees of the PACS, other than the paid Secretaries. In fact, as on date, there are 38 vacancies in District Cooperative Central Bank, East Godavari, Kakinada i.e., 4th Respondent in the writ petition. The District Cooperative Office, Kakinada, has also addressed a letter Rc.No.3770/96-A, dated 15.12.2001 for inclusion of the employees of the PACS in the seniority panel of paid secretaries (Cadre Secretaries). In the said proceedings there is reference of writ petition being filed by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the District Cooperative Central Bank, Kakinada vide letter Rc.No.Estt./2008, dated 28.02.2008, issued notification, inviting applications from the eligible paid Secretaries. The vacancies notified were 56 posts. Out of which, after considering the eligible candidates, only 18 posts have been filled up and there are 38 vacancies still available. Though the petitioners are fully eligible to be considered for the said posts, they are not considered solely on the premise that the writ petition is pending. As no action is taken and they are not included in the list of eligible candidates to be considered for 38 posts, they filed WPMP.No.16762 of 2010, seeking direction to consider and absorb the petitioners as a Special Cadre Assistants in the 4th respondent Bank. This Court granted interim orders dated 27.07.2010 and as the said interim order was not implemented, they filed C.C.No.1425 of 2010 wherein, the stand taken by the respondents was that there is no provision to consider the candidature of the Secretaries, who are appointed by the Board of Management of the concerned PACS and that the G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 20.02.2009 is meant only for decategorized paid Secretaries. Therefore, the petitioners cannot equate themselves with the paid Secretaries, who appointed under Half a Million Job Scheme. It is further submitted that the issue of considering the Secretaries of the PACS, who were appointed by the Board of Management in the posts available in the District Cooperative Central Bank again came up for consideration before the Government in the 5th meeting of the Cabinet Sub Committee of the Ministers of the State of A.P. held on 28.04.2011 agreed to fill up 25% of the vacancies in the direct recruitment of clerical cadre of DCCBs which earmarked for eligible PACS. In the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kakinada, vide Rc.No.Estt/2008, dated 28.02.2008, a notification was issued inviting applications for 56 posts in the category of V of the DCCB of Kakinada, out of which, only 10 vacancies have been filled up. Apart from the above, some more vacancies have also arisen due to retirements, promotions, etc. Thus, all the petitioners can be accommodated in terms of the Cabinet Sub-Committee decision dated 28.04.2011. Eventually, it is submitted that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Bank have also agreed for filling up of the vacancies from eligible PACS employees. Therefore, it is prayed to direct the respondents to fill up the 25% of vacancies from among the eligible PACS employees including the petitioners herein. On behalf of the respondents, denying the claim of the petitioners, detailed counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that the appointment of the petitioners is made by the Board as Secretary of the concerned PACS but not as a Cadre Secretary by the Bank. The petitioners are not entitled to be absorbed in the Bank as was done in the case of de-caderised paid Secretaries. G.O.Ms. No.67, dated 20.02.2009 is applicable only to the de-caderised paid Secretaries but not to the petitioners as they are not a de-caderised Secretaries and they are appointed by the Management of the concerned Societies. On the similar subject, a batch of writ petitions have been filed by other Secretaries was dismissed by order dated 05.10.2010 and W.A.No.1023 of 2010 is preferred and the same is pending before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are equally discharging their duties and functions on par with the Secretaries appointed by the Management i.e. Bank. Therefore, the petitioners should be given equal treatment and benefits on par with the Secretaries appointed by the Bank. It is also submitted that the issue of considering the Secretaries of the PACS, who were appointed by the Board of Management in the posts available in the District Cooperative Central Bank, again came up for consideration before the Government in the V meeting of the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the Ministers of the State of Andhra Pradesh held on 28.04.2011 and agreed to fill up 25% of the vacancies in the direct recruitment of clerical cadre of DCCBs, which earmarked for eligible PACS. Further, in the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kakinada, vide Rc.No.Estt/2008, dated 28.02.2008, a notification was issued inviting applications for 56 posts in the category of V of the DCCB of Kakinada, out of which, few vacancies have been filled up. Apart from the above, some more vacancies have also arisen due to retirements, promotions, etc. Thus, all the petitioners herein can be accommodated in terms of the Cabinet Sub-Committee decision dated 28.04.2011. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel would submit that origin appointment of the petitioners is different from the appointments of Secretaries that are being made by the Bank. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be provided equal benefits on par with the Secretaries, whose appointments were made by the Bank. It is also submitted that under similar circumstances, a writ petition was filed and after contesting the matter, the said writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners therein preferred an appeal in W.A. No.1023 of 2010 and the same is pending before this Court and there are no orders in favour of the petitioners therein. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Having regard to the fact that the nature of service conditions of the petitioners and the Secretaries, whose appointments were made by the Bank, are different and also similarly situated persons filed a writ petition was dismissed and on which an appeal was preferred and the same is pending, therefore, I do not see any reason to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioners in the writ petition. As far as the W.P.M.P. No.23792 of 2011 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has categorically submitted that the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the Ministers had agreed to fill up 25% of the vacancies in the direct recruitment of clerical cadre of DCCBs, which earmarked for eligible PACS and on the other hand the learned standing counsel submitted that mere taking decision of the Cabinet Sub-Committee is not sufficient to extend the benefit to the petitioners on par with the Secretaries appointed by the Bank, unless and until the Government issues the relevant G.O., therefore, under these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 02.09.2011 LSK