SBCWP NO.5650/2001. SBCWP NO.4727/2000. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5650/2001. Jai Karan Singh Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur & Anr. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4727/2000. Rajasthan State Cooperative Union Vs. The Rajasthan State Co-operative Tribunal Jaipur & Ors. Date of Order :- 30/6/2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Neeraj Kumar Bhatt for the petitioner. (In SBCWP No.5650/01). Shri Ram Kumar Sharma for petitioner. (In SBCWP No.4727/00). **** BY THE COURT:- Out of these two writ petitions, one has been filed by one by Jai Karan Singh, the petitioner who retired as Principal Central Cooperative Society Bharatpur for enforcement of the orders of the Arbitrator dated 11/12/1996 (Ann.1) and dated 18/9/1999 (Ann.2) of the Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Tribunal, Jaipur and another by Rajasthan State SBCWP NO.5650/2001. SBCWP NO.4727/2000. 2 Cooperative Union for quashment of order dated 18/9/1999 (Ann.2). Since both these petitions arise out of the common judgment dated 18/9/1999, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment & order. 2) Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner-Jai Karan Singh is that orders of the Arbitrator dated 11/12/1996 (Ann.1) and dated 18/9/1999 (Ann.2) of the Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Tribunal, Jaipur should be implemented and respondents may be directed to pay him the monetary benefits arising out of the aforesaid orders whereas, contention of learned counsel for petitioner-Rajasthan State Cooperative Union is that order of the Tribunal dated 18/9/1999 (Ann.2) vide which their appeals filed against the order dated 11/12/1996 passed by the Arbitrator were dismissed and the order dated 11/12/1996, may be quashed. 3) The writ petition, being SBCWP No.5650/2001 filed by petitioner Jai Karan Singh need no detailed discussion on merits since it merely prayed for enforcement of the judgment of the Arbitrator and the Tribunal. 4) Shri Ram Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for petitioner-Rajasthan State Cooperative Union has submitted that Arbitrator was not justified in entertaining the dispute under Section SBCWP NO.5650/2001. SBCWP NO.4727/2000. 3 75 of the Act of 1965 because already earlier similar dispute was raised by the petitioner on 1/4/1972 on the same cause of action and even during the dispute was pending, respondent No.3-Jai Karan Singh made an application to the Arbitrator on 7/1/1994 for withdrawal of the dispute. Therefore, it was submitted by the learned counsel that the second dispute regarding the same subject-matter and on the same cause of action could not be entertained. Secondly, it was argued that respondent No.3-Jai Karan Singh could not be granted any relief by the Arbitrator because one Shiv Bux Singh with whom he had a grievance that he being junior was wrongly promoted prior to him, was neither impleaded as party nor his promotion was subjected to challenge when second dispute was raised. The Tribunal was also not justified in dismissing the appeal ignoring these aspects of the matter. 5) Shri Neeraj Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Jai Karan Singh opposed SBCWP No.4727/2000 and submitted that earlier dispute was withdrawn by the respondents on account of the fact that petitioners raised an objection about the maintainability of the dispute and, therefore, respondents withdrew the same with a view to filing a civil suit. When the civil suit was filed, the court declined to entertain the dispute SBCWP NO.5650/2001. SBCWP NO.4727/2000. 4 holding that such a controversy could be raised before the Arbitrator under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Act, 1965 and, therefore, the civil suit was dismissed. He was therefore left with no remedy except to again approach the Arbitrator under Section 75. So far as non-impleadment of Shiv Bux Singh is concerned, it was stated that originally when the dispute was raised, petitioner had challenged his promotion and also impleaded him but by the time, the second dispute was filed, he already retired. 6) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments aforesaid and the impugned judgment passed by the Arbitrator as also the judgment of the Tribunal. The Arbitrator and the Tribunal have both concurrently found that Shiv Bux Singh was promoted in preference to respondent No.3-Jai Karan Singh on the premise that respondent No.3 was not having the qualification of HDC Course. Promotion to Shiv Bux Singh was accorded on 17/4/1971 whereas requirement of possessing the aforesaid qualification was for the first time introduced in rules in the year 1982. It has therefore been held that such a requirement could not be retrospectively enforced against the petitioner even if the promotion to Shiv Bux Singh was granted at later point of time though with retrospective effect. The fact that dispute was SBCWP NO.5650/2001. SBCWP NO.4727/2000. 5 immediately raised by the petitioner in 1971 challenging promotion granted to Shiv Bux Singh and the fact that he had been impleaded as party is not denied. It is also not controverted that proceedings under Sections 75 for such dispute remained pending till 7/1/1994 when it was allowed to be withdrawn and that was done because the respondents raised objection with regard to maintainability of the dispute. Respondent-Jai Karan Singh then withdrew the dispute with a view to filing civil suit. However, the civil suit was dismissed by the civil court holding that such a controversy could be adjudicated upon only in proceedings under Section 75. Obviously, therefore, the learned Arbitrator and the learned Tribunal were justified in holding that the dispute in peculiar facts of the case could not be dismissed as being bared by principles of res judicata. Delay therefore cannot come in the way of respondent No.3-Jai Karan Singh because earlier dispute remained pending till 1994 and second dispute was raised by him immediately thereafter in 1995 when civil suit was dismissed. When Shiv Bux Singh had already retired, his non-imleadment was inconsequential particularly when now petitioner-Jai Karan Singh has also retired, the only question that would survive would be for grant of consequential monetary benefits. Non-impleadment of Shiv Bux Singh SBCWP NO.5650/2001. SBCWP NO.4727/2000. 6 therefore, in any case can now have no meaning. 7) In view of above, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Arbitrator as also the Tribunal. 8) The writ petition preferred by petitioner- Rajasthan State Cooperative Union being SBCWP No.4727/2000 is, therefore, dismissed but at the same time, writ petition filed by petitioner-Jai Karan Singh being SBCWP No.5650/2001 seeking implementation of the award passed by the Arbitrator is allowed with direction to the Rajasthan State Cooperation Union to implement the same and grant consequential benefits to petitioner-Jai Karan Singh with interest @ 6% per annum. Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date of production of copy of the judgment. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil