IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 210 OF 2011 (S/S) David Arif Hasan ……..Petitioner. Versus U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. and another. ……….Respondents. Present: Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner was an employee of U.P. State Cooperative Federation. The petitioner thereafter became a member of Uttarakhand State Cooperative Federation and he retired from service in the month of November, 2010. The petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court as he is not getting his gratuity, leave encashment and other post retirement benefits from U.P. State Cooperative Federation. This controversy in fact stands settled by an earlier order dated 20.11.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1176 of 2005 (S/S), wherein the liability to pay such dues has been fixed upon the U.P. State Cooperative Federation. This judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the U.P. State Cooperative Federation in Special Appeal being Special Appeal No. 176 of 2006, which was dismissed on 15.6.2007. Thereafter, U.P. State Cooperative Federation filed an SLP before the 2 Supreme Court, which was dismissed and thereafter, the review petition filed against the said order was also dismissed. In other words, the matter has now attained a finality. Initially when this writ petition was filed in this Court, the Court was inclined to dispose of this writ petition in terms of the earlier direction of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1176 of 2005 (S/S), but the counsel representing U.P. State Cooperative Federation Sri Ashish Joshi gave a statement before the Court on 16.3.2011 that this case is different from other cases, which have been disposed of by this Court such as one already referred in the preceding paragraph, and sought time to explain the difference. Today a counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Joshi representing the U.P.State Cooperative Federation, which is taken on record. In the counter affidavit, the sole ground for creating a difference between the present case and in the earlier cases is that according to the respondents earlier cases were decided on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 6.11.2004 between the U.P. State Cooperative Federation and Uttarakhand State Co-operative Federation, by which the dues have to be given by the U.P. State Cooperative Federation. All the same unilaterally the “U.P. State Cooperative Federation” has now cancelled this Memorandum of Understanding vide order dated 10.11.2010 and since the Memorandum of Understanding was cancelled on 10.11.2010 and the petitioner retired on 30.11.2010, this benefit cannot be granted to the petitioner. This in short is now the argument of Sri Joshi. This argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the said Memorandum of Understanding 3 has been considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court as well as by the Division Bench of this Court and the benefits accruing to the employees have been granted to them. It is not open to the “U.P. State Cooperative Federation” to unilaterally cancel an M.O.U. and merely because the M.O.U. has been cancelled it will not make any material difference in the case, as both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court have relied upon the said M.O.U. in their earlier orders. The U.P State Cooperative Federation has evidently only unilaterally recalled the said M.O.U. (which in any case they cannot) purely in order to circumvent judicial orders of this Court. This case is therefore in no way different than the earlier cases, where an order has been passed in favour of similarly placed persons. The writ petition is therefore disposed of in terms of the order dated 20.11.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1176 of 2005 (S/S) Anand Swaroop Vs. The U.P. State Co-operative Federation and others as well as the order dated 15.6.2007 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 176 of 2006 U.P. State Cooperative Federation Limited and another Vs. Anand Swaroop and others. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 29.3.2011 Rathour