IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No.13859 of 2008 (OA No.2327 of 2006) Date of decision: August 19, 2011. Ashwani Ramesh. …. Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Cooperative Bank and another. …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. P.M.Negi, Dy.Advocate General for respondent No.2. Surinder Singh, J (oral): An Original Application No.2327 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner before the then State Administrative Tribunal and after its abolition, it was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T). 2. Petitioner sought mainly the following relief:- “Respondent No.1 may be directed to adhere to the notification issued on 10.2.2003 annexed herewith as Annexure A-2 with further directions to pay all the pending bills pertaining to the arbitration charges to the applicant forthwith with an interest at the rate of 12% PA”. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - 3. Vide Notification No.Coop.B(1)-3/2002 dated 19th June, 2003, the petitioner was posted as Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies in the Department of Cooperation. After being posted as such, he was dealing with the arbitration matters of the Cooperative Bank. According to him, due to his efficient working, he enabled respondent No.1 to recover more than `2 crore. 4. As per the provisions of the State Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971, the Registrar may, in such cases as he thinks fit, order payment of fee or cost or both to the arbitrator and appoint and empower under the Rules. 5. Vide Office Order dated 24th September, 2001 (Annexure A-1), in pursuance to Rule 19(3) of H.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies ordered that an official arbitrator of the Cooperative Department shall be entitled to get arbitration fee of `300/- for deciding a dispute [except the disputes covered under Section 72(2)(c)] referred to him under Section 73 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 read with Rule 89 of the Rules made - 3 - thereunder with a rider that no arbitration fee shall be paid to an arbitrator if the dispute is not finally decided by him within a period of four months from the date of actual reference to him by the Registrar. Subsequently, vide Office Order No.10-80/84-Coop.(A&L) dated 10th February, 2003, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, H.P. issued the following office order:- “No.10/80/84-Coop.(A&L), Directorate of Co-operation Himachal Pradesh. Office Order. In supersession of this directorate letter of even number dated 24th September, 2001 and in pursuance of rule 90(3) of the H.P. Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1971, I, S.K.B.S. Negi. Registrar Co- operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh do hereby order that an official arbitrator of the Co-operative Department may be entitled to get an arbitration fee of `300/- for deciding a dispute [except the disputes covered under section 72(2) (c ) ] referred to him under section 73 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 read with rule 89 of the rules made thereunder. The arbitration cases may ordinarily be decided within a period of four months. However, the competent authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, may extend the period for deciding a dispute on case to case basis. No arbitration fee shall be paid to an official arbitrator in case the dispute is not decided within the stipulated or extended period, as the case may be. - 4 - In respect of all arbitration cases which have been pending disposal with the official arbitrators in the State for more than 4 months, ex-post facto permission is granted under the proviso to rule 91(2) of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971 to extend the period for deciding said disputed upto 15/2/2003. The official arbitrators to whom disputes have been referred for disposal but who failed to finally decide the same within a period of four months in pursuance of this directorate letter of even number dated 24/9/2001 shall also be eligible to receive the arbitration fee as specified above in case they finally decide such pending disputes on or before 15/2/2003. For the sake of clarification, it is reiterated that permission to extend the period for deciding a dispute beyond four months shall henceforth be granted by the competent authority on case to case basis by recording reasons for doing so. In case an arbitration case is remanded back, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act or by virtue of an order issued by any court, to the arbitrator who had decided the case, no further arbitration fee shall be paid. These orders may be brought to the notice of all concerned. Sd/- Registrar, Co-operative Societies Himachal Pradesh. Endst.No.10-80/84-Coop.(A&L) Dated 10th February, 2003 With copies to all concerned.” 6. Since the petitioner is alleged to have decided many cases of the Cooperative Bank, thus, taking the - 5 - benefit of the aforesaid Notification/ Office Order, he made representation Annexure A-3 to respondent No.1 for releasing the amount of arbitration fee to him, which was not responded to by the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended at the very outset that the present writ petition is not maintainable against the respondent Bank in view of the judgment rendered by the apex Court in S.S. Rana v. Registrar, Coop.Societies and Another [(2006) 11 SCC 634]. This contention is not considered and entertained at this stage, as the matter is being disposed of to decide the representation of the petitioner pending with respondents, if found in consonance with office order dated 10.2.2003. 8. Respondent No.2 in his reply, which has also been adopted by respondent No.1, submitted that in view of the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Bank), he was not entitled for the aforesaid amount, because it was his official duty to dispose of the cases as having been paid salary. - 6 - 9. The Office Order quoted above issued in supersession of earlier letter dated 24.9.2001 clearly indicates that amount to be paid is an incentive to the person(s) conducting the arbitration cases in addition to whatever salary they were being paid to expedite the cases of recovery in a time-bound manner. Therefore, the petitioner is prima-facie entitled to get it. 10. Thus, respondents are hereby directed to decide the pending representation (Annexure A-3) filed by the petitioner within a period of two months and in case the petitioner’s contention is correct in conformity with the Office Order dated 10th February, 2003 aforesaid, same be released to him. 11. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (Surinder Singh), August 19, 2011. Judge. (Pds)