LPA No.1452 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1452 of 2011 Date of decision: 17.8.2011 Rambhajan Singh ...Appellant Versus The Additional Registrar (I) Cooperative Societies Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. M.S.Kang, Advocate for the appellant. Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against order of the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and resolution of respondent No.3 Cooperative Society deciding to reinstate respondent No.4 to the post of Salesman in the shop of the Society. 2. Respondent No.3 is a Cooperative Society under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and is running a shop. The shop was closed in the year 2003 and respondent No.4 who was working as Salesman was retrenched from service. In departmental proceedings, respondent No.4 succeeded but a writ petition as filed in this Court wherein order in favour of respondent 1 LPA No.1452 of 2011 No.4 was stayed. Thereafter, the Society took a decision on 7.5.2010 to re-open the shop and to appoint respondent No.4 as Salesman. One of the reasons which weighed with the Society was that husband of respondent No.4 had died and she gave up her claim for back wages. It was also decided to withdraw the writ petition pending in this Court. Aggrieved by the decision of the Society, the appellant filed a petition before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala which was dismissed. The appellant thereafter filed a revision petition before the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh which has also been dismissed. Dealing with the contention of the appellant that the matter being not on agenda, respondent No.4 could not be reinstated, it was observed that majority of members of the Managing Committee having passed the resolution, no prejudice was caused. 3. Learned Single Judge, after due consideration of contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, held that appointment of respondent No.4 being in terms of earlier decision while closing the shop and retrenching her, there was no illegality in appointment of respondent No.4 on re-opening of the shop. In the facts and circumstances, no interference was called for. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under Rule 80 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963, without an item being on agenda, decision on such an item could not be taken. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. The agenda in the present case, Annexure P.3 shows that appointment of respondent No.4 is specifically mentioned as Item No.3. Withdrawal of writ petition in this Court and opening of shop being interconnected to 2 LPA No.1452 of 2011 appointment of respondent No.4 could, thus, be treated to be covered by the said agenda. 7. No interference is, thus, called for with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice August 17, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3