1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2054 OF 2009 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Osmanabad ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents ... Advocates appearing for : Petitioner : Shri S.B.Rohile, Respondents 1 to 3 : Smt. Sunita D. Shelke, AGP and Respondent 4 : Shri R.P.Bhumkar. ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH,J. Dated : 19.1.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner is Osmanabad Zilla Dekharekh Sahakari Sanstha ("District Level Society"). Chapter VI of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ("said Act") is relevant for consideration and disposal of this Writ Petition. This chapter is titled as "Property and Funds of the Society". Section 69A of the said Act provides contribution of cooperative state committee of Secretaries of certain societies and establishment of employment of such cadre. Contribution of District Level and State Level 2 Committees is the matter governed by Section 69B of the said Act. This section obligates the State Government to constitute District Level Committies and State Level Committies from time to time as it shall deem fit for solving the problems of the Group Secretaries in the State. It is a matter of common knowledge that in view of the provisions of the said Act, Cooperative Societies at village level are functioning in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 and the approved bye laws of such credit cooperative village level societies. The aim and objective of such village level societies is to cater to the needs of the aggrerian community for raising loans and maintaining various crops in their agricultural lands. Thus, the finance to these societies is being made available from the specified society of every district functioning in the State. Specified society is defined and/or provided under section 73G of the said Act. The District Central Bank established and functioning in every district in the State is a Specified Cooperative Society taking care to finance the farmers, agriculturists and aggrerian community in the State. In other words, entire finance from District Central Bank to aggrerian community for raising and maintaining the crops is routed through the village level credit cooperative societies. The village level credit cooperative societies are governed and controlled by the managing committee, elected by their members. Apart from the managing committee, Secretary, ordinarily one for every society, is being appointed by the respective managing committee of the village level credit cooperative society or District Level Sangh. The district level committies are contemplated under section 69B of the said Act. These committies are popularly known as Zilla Dekharekh 3 Sangh. They are meant and established, ordinarily, for every district in the State of Maharashtra. These district level sanghs are also cooperative societies registered and functioning in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The managing committee / Board of Directors of such district level committies take care of all village level credit cooperative societies through taluka level Sangh. All such village level credit cooperative societies are ultimately affiliated to district level committies or Dekharekh Sangh. The transfer and appointment of Secretaries, Group Secretaries in view of the provisions of the Act and Rules of 1961 and policy laid down by the State Government from time to time is a matter entrusted to such Dekharekh Sangh and/or District Level Committies. That is how, in the present case, we are concerned with the grievance raised by the parties. 4. It is the contention of respondent No.4 that he was working as a Group Secretary for some time - roughly about 46 months. However, salary was not paid to him. Shri Bhumkar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.4 points out Exhibit "E". This order dated 8.1.2008, appears to have been issued under the signature of the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner. By this order, the authority conferred upon the respondent No.4 by earlier order of the petitioner, dt.1.1.2008, has been withdrawn. This order further conveys respondent No.4 that he should forthwith hand-over charge to concerned person and submit report accordingly. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that, that is how by this order, he was directed to hand over the charge and he was disrobed from the position he was holding by the earlier order. His main grievance is about non payment of salary for 4 46 months despite the fact that he worked during that period with the petitioner. Page No. 24 is the communication, addressed to the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Osmanabad by the petitioner. It was informed by the petitioner that since respondent no.4 was not on the establishment, salary cannot be paid to him. Another communication is at page 25, which is addressed to respondent No.4 by the petitioner. By this communication, respondent No.4 was conveyed that since he is not on the establishment, he is not eligible for the salary. 5. So far Dekharekh Sangh is concerned, I have mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs that it works at district level. There are taluka level Dekharekh Sanghs functioning in various talukas. In the case on hand, one such taluka sangh, at the relevant time, was functioning at taluka Kallam of district Osmanabad. Exhibit "D" is the communication addressed by the petitioner dt.1.1.2008 to the Executive Officer, Taluka Dekharekh Sangh, Kallam by which, it was informed that respondent No.4 was not on the establishment of Andora Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society (Village level credit cooperative society) and is functioning unauthorizedly as a Group Secretary. He was not empowered or authorized to work as a Group Secretary by the petitioner neither respondent No.4 is on the establishment of the petitioner The petitioner, therefore, has conveyed its inability to make the payment of salary to respondent No.4. In this communication itself, the communication dt.10.12.2007 addressed to respondent No.4 is mentioned. According to the petitioner, by this communication respondent No.4 was informed that he was / is not eligible for salary. 5 6. Respondent no.4 being aggrieved by the communication dt. 1.1.2008 by the petitioner to Kallam Taluka Dekharekh Sangh, appealed to the learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur under section 13 of the Osmanabad Zilla Dekharekh Sangh Rules. Order passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar is at Exhibit "F". This order seems to have been passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, after hearing the parties. By this order, it has been held by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, that the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of Group Secretaries prepared by the petitioner In such a list, there were about 30 names and pay scale of Group Secretaries of these 30 persons was approved at Rs.4,000 to Rs. 6,000. Reference is made to the resolution dt.29.5.2004 passed by the Board of Directors of Osmanabad Sangh. Since the authority concerned could not find name of the petitioner in the list of 30 approved Group Secretaries on a pay scale of Rs.4,000 to 6,000. Neither the authority could find appointment of the respondent No.4 as Group Secretary The authority, thereafter, has referred to the communications dt.1.1.2008 and 8.1.2008 and dismissed the Appeal No.7/2008 filed by respondent No.4. This order was delivered by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 2.6.2008. 7. Said order was further challenged by filing revision under section 154 of the said Act. It was heard by the Honourable Minister for Cooperation and he allowed the same on 25.11.2008 and directed the opponents to allow respondent No.4 to work as a Clerk and also further directed to pay him the arrears of 44 months. This order is impugned in the 6 present Writ Petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is per se illegal. Respondents have filed their reply. The petitioner has also filed re-joinder sworn in by Shri Amar Zalte. The thrust of the order passed by the Honourable Minister is the order passed by the petitioner on 28.2.2004. The Honourable Minister has observed that respondent No.4 was empowered by this order dt.28.2.2004 to function / work as a Group Secretary. This is the order passed by the Executive Officer of the petitioner The Honourable Minister has observed in the order that there is a resolution of the then managing committee of the petitioner Thus, the respondent No.4 was empowered to function as a Group Secretary by resolution passed by the managing committee of the petitioner, dt.20.2.2004. The Honourable Minister has also noticed the fact that respondent No.4 was not appointed as a Group Secretary. Amendment to the bye laws, has been also referred to by the Honourable Minister. The Honourable Minister has, however, observed, " Interestingly, it is further stated by the applicant that he has not questioned the opponent No.3 for salary and therefore, opponent has not paid salary to the applicant." The Honourable Minister has taken notice of every contention raised by all the parties to the revision application. The Honourable Minister ultimately reached a conclusion that the applicant has proved beyond doubt that the opponent No.2 (petitioner) vide this order dt.28.2.2004 has empowered applicant (respondent No.4) to sign as a Group Secretary and also ordered to pay him consolidated salary of Rs.3500/-. He has further noticed that respondent No.4 has worked as a Group Secretary. Salary for two 7 months was paid to the respondent No.4 by the petitioner, though he worked for 46 months, in opinion of the revisional authority. With these reasons, revisional authority has passed the order, which is impugned in this Writ Petition 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also considered the order passed by the petitioner - page 58 of the compilation - dt.28.2.2004. This order is significant and important. It was mentioned in this order that there are large number of village level cooperative societies affiliated to the petitioner However, small number of group secretaries are working with the petitioner Since the group secretaries are inadequate in terms of numbers and since it was time for recovery of the loan and disbursement of loan to the aggrerian community, Group Secretaries working at the relevant time were working under stress and strain. This communication Exhibit R/1 (Page 51) is similar to that of Page 58, which pertains to one Premraj Shelke. Page 51, however, relates to the petitioner It appears that not only the petitioner but some other person is similarly employed, in view of inadequacy of persons available for recovery and distribution of the loan in the District Osmanabad. On a pointed query, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any explanation either in the writ petition itself or in the affidavit filed by the petitioner As to why this order dt.28.2.2004 was issued and why this order should not be considered in favour and for the benefit of respondent No.4. In my view judgment of the Honourable Minister seems to be solely based on this order. It was for the petitioner while approaching this Court to clarify as to whether 8 this order was issued by the petitioner and what is explanation therefor. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any statement in the writ petition or affidavit. He, however, on instructions, submits that the salary for two months, which was paid to respondent No.4 was paid by one person and some action is being initiated against that person. Such person is not a party to this writ petition We have no concerned for this aspect, which has not been pleaded in the written statement or rejoinder. 10. This Writ Petition is filed invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Here is the case, wherein impugned order is a reasoned order and in favour of respondent No.4, who has worked for 46 months, however, received salary for two months only. In my view, order impugned cannot be said to be perverse. Writ Petition is devoid of any substance. 11. In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. ( S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) ... akl