IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3338 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.09.2011 Gurcharan Singh, Ex-Business Manager, The Punjab State Federation of Consumer's Cooperative Wholesale Stores Limited, Chandigarh, r/o 1715, Phase-7, Mohali (Ropar) ....Petitioner versus The Punjab State Federation of Consumer's Cooperative Wholesale Stores Limited, Chandigarh, SCO No.22, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. 1. The petitioner was a Business Manager employed with Punjab State Federation of Consumer's Cooperative Wholesale Stores Limited, Chandigarh (CONSTOFED) and was terminated from service on the ground that, for economic reason, the Administration was abolishing the post as Business Manager. He was, therefore, being paid one month's pay in lieu of notice by the order of the Managing Director, CONSTOFED. He preferred an Civil Writ Petition No.3338 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - appeal to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, described as the 2nd respondent, who dismissed the appeal on 12.03.1984. A revision filed to the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, was also dismissed on 21.07.1988. All these orders passed by the respective authorities i.e. respondents 1 to 3, are in challenge before this Court as being violative of the respective rules. 2. The petitioner's contention is that CONSTOFED is a public undertaking with 95% of the shares being held by the State of Punjab and hence a functionality of State. The petitioner had joined with CONSTOFED on 25.08.1965 as an Assistant, later designated as a Field Officer from 01.04.1969 and still later, promoted as Business Manager from 30.10.1970. He was confirmed on that post on 14.12.1972 under the CONSTOFED Common Cadre Rules, 1971 that were made applicable to CONSTOFED w.e.f. 12.06.1972. 3. The petitioner was posted as a General Manager w.e.f. 31.03.1976 and the post of General Manager and Business Manager were equivalent posts, but when his junior B.S. Chahal, Field Officer, arrayed as the 4th respondent, was given the additional charge as Business Manager, the petitioner had been made the General Manager. The petitioner faced some departmental proceedings that entailed suspension but after an enquiry, he was reinstated on 21.11.1981 and posted as Business Manager, CONSTOFED, by the impugned order dated 12.07.1982. The Civil Writ Petition No.3338 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - services of both the petitioner and the 4th respondent, namely, B.S. Chahal, who was then working as a General Manager, Ludhiana, were dispensed with on the abolition of the post of the Business Manager on economic grounds. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the abolition of post of the Business Manager itself was arbitrary, since the Business Manager held an important post which was equivalent to the other posts, namely, the General Manager (Cooperative Store), General Manager (Dal Mill), Manager Textiles, Senior Manager, and the termination of the petitioner, who was a confirmed employee, was arbitrary, unjust and unfair. The petitioner would contend that when the 4th respondent had preferred an appeal, who was similarly placed such as the petitioner and who was also a junior to him, he was reappointed by the Managing Director at the express orders of the Registrar. The petitioner did not obtain any such favourable consideration. While dismissing his claim, the Registrar observed that the Common Cadre Rules were withdrawn by the Registrar so that the appeal was not maintainable and since the termination resulted from the abolition of posts and not by way of punishment, the petitioner could have no grievance. 5. If the 4th respondent had been reinstated in service and posted as General Manager at Chandigarh and this fact had also been brought to the knowledge of the Commissioner at the time Civil Writ Petition No.3338 of 1989 (O&M) - 4 - when the revision was pending, the 3rd respondent was not prepared to accept the same and give a similar treatment to the petitioner. The petitioner would contend that even the order of the Commissioner in rejecting the petition as not maintainable, was erroneous, for, the order sought to be revised, was the order of dismissal of the appeal disposed of by the Registrar. The latter had dismissed the appeal not on merits but he himself rejected the appeal as not maintainable. According to the petitioner, the Commissioner himself ought to have remitted the matter only to the Registrar for adjudication on merits. The 4th respondent himself obtained favourable consideration when this Court had held that even a revision was competent under Section 69 of the Cooperative Societies Act and there is simply no reason to deny the same relief to the petitioner. 6. The order of termination cannot be sustained. There cannot be a situation where both the appellate authority and the revisional authority could hold that the initial order was not susceptible to review both in appellate and revisional forums. The order of termination is also discriminatory in according to the 4th respondent a different treatment, while earlier, he had also been terminated on the same ground of abolition of post. 7. The impugned order is set aside; the petitioner is entitled to be re-adjusted as General Manager and entitled to all consequential benefits, which shall be worked out and become Civil Writ Petition No.3338 of 1989 (O&M) - 5 - payable within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation already, the financial benefits shall be calculated on the basis that the order of termination was bad and that the petitioner continued in service. The amount determined shall also bear interest at 6% per annum. 8. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.09.2011 sanjeev