The Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu Writ Petition No.10068 of 2011 Between: P.Jagadeeshwar ..... Petitioner AND 1.Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Manchal Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District, Rep. by its President and 3 others. .....Respondents The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus seeking a declaration that the proceedings in Ref.HRD/2010-11, dated 07-03-2011, issued by the second respondent- Bank, surrendering the petitioner’s services to the first respondent- Society as Chief Executive Officer from the post of Special Category Assistant of second respondent-Bank, are illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was appointed under half-a-million job scheme in the year 1979 as Paid Secretary by the then Common Cadre Committee. After merger of the Society in the year 1995, he joined as Assistant Secretary of the first respondent- Society. While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.67 Agriculture and Cooperative Department, dated 20-02-2009, taking the services of the Common Cadre Secretaries from the individual societies to that of the District Cooperative Central Banks and accordingly, the second respondent- Bank issued proceedings in Ref.No.HRD/2009-10, dated 10-06-2009, taking the petitioner’s services into the category of Special Category Assistant in its Bank. On a request made by the first respondent-Society, the second respondent- Bank vide proceedings in Ref.HRD/2009-10, dated 13-07-2009, deputed the petitioner as Chief Executive Officer in the first respondent-Society. While the petitioner was working as such, the second respondent-Bank vide proceedings in Ref.HRD/2010-11, dated 01-04-2010, transferred the petitioner to its branch at Maheshwaram. The petitioner could not join there, as the first respondent- Society refused to relieve him. The second respondent- Bank issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation for not joining in the transferred post and the petitioner gave his explanation. On being satisfied with the petitioner’s explanation, the second respondent- Bank has dropped the charges but issued the impugned proceedings by surrendering the petitioner’s services to the first respondent- Society. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition has been filed. Heard both sides. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent- Bank has no authority or power to surrender the petitioner’s services to the first respondent- Society and as such, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. The learned Government Pleader for Cooperation representing the second respondent- Bank stated that if the petitioner joins, the second respondent- Bank is ready to take him back into service. The petitioner is a regular employee of the second respondent- Bank. The second respondent- Bank can at best depute its employee to work at the first respondent- Society but cannot surrender him thereto. Therefore, impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent- Bank surrendering the petitioner to the first respondent- Society are liable to be set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to report to the second respondent- Bank within a period of ten days from today. ____________ (K.C.Bhanu, J) Date: 30th April, 2011 Note: Furnish CC within a week. B/o lur After merger The worked as Assistant Secretary of the first respondent-Society from the year 1995.