HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.13691 of 2000 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 01.07.2000, for payment of salary from September, 1997 onwards, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the salary forthwith. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Paid Secretary by the fourth respondent in the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (PACS), Suryapet on 28.12.1994. He was transferred by the third respondent, by his proceedings dated 13.12.1996, to work on deputation under the control of the first respondent-Society. He was relieved from PACS, Suryapet, vide proceedings dated 13.12.1996. He claims to have joined the first respondent-Society on 01.01.1997. The petitioner would contend that the first respondent-Society placed one hurdle after another in denying his claim for payment of salary; and at the behest of the first respondent, his services were transferred to PACS, Rayangudem, vide proceedings dated 15.12.1997. Except the third respondent, none of the other respondents have filed counter affidavits. They are also not represented by counsel when the writ petition was taken up for final hearing. In his counter affidavit, the third respondent would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Paid Secretary on condition that he should acquire qualification of Junior Diploma in Cooperation within a period of three years; he absconded from duties frequently and was not sincere in discharging his duties; as the PACS, Suryapet was not in a position to bear the salaries of two Secretaries, the President of PACS, TallaKhammam Pahad had requested the third respondent, vide letter dated 22.11.1996, to shift the petitioner to another PACS; accordingly proceedings dated 13.12.1996 was issued deputing the petitioner, temporarily, to PACS TallaKhammam Pahad; he joined duty on 01.11.1997; thereafter the first respondent-Society, in its letter dated 26.03.1997, requested that the deputation orders be cancelled as the Society was not dealing with non-credit business; initially the third respondent rejected the said request on the ground that there was no provision to surrender the Secretary either to the bank or to the Cooperative Department; but, at the persistent request of the first respondent, he was transferred to PACS, Rayanguda, vide proceedings dated 30.04.1997. The fact that the petitioner’s services were engaged with the first respondent-Society during the period from 01.01.1997 till the proceedings dated 15.12.1997 was issued, transferring him to PACS, Rayanguda, is not in dispute. Having availed the services of the petitioner, the respondents were duty bound to pay his salary for the work he discharged during the said period. While the counter affidavit of the third respondent refers to the unauthorized absence of the petitioner on several occasions, that would not justify the respondents in denying him salary atleast for the period he actually worked. I consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner’s claim for payment of salary during the period 01.01.1997 to 15.12.1997, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents shall determine the quantum of salary, to which the petitioner is entitled to, for the days he worked and shall make payment within one month thereafter. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:23.07.2010 usd