CWP No.8715 of 1996 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8715 of 1996 (O&M) Decided on : 13-12-2010 Rajiv Mathur ....Petitioner VERSUS The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Kwatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana Mr. S.S.Dalal, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 MAHESH GROVER, J With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up on Board for disposal. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers:- i) a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as “Project Officer” in pursuance of his appointment letter dated 28.4.93 as he has already completed the maximum period of probation prescribed in the appointment letter and has also completed the maximum period as prescribed in the Common Cadre Rules, 1988 and with a further direction to CWP No.8715 of 1996 (O&M) 2 the respondents to issue a formal order of confirmation of the petitioner. ii)A writ in the nature of certiorari/prohibition may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents restraining the respondents to pass the order of termination and to take any such decision in the meeting scheduled for 14.6.1996 in pursuance of the Agenda Item under the tentative head “Item No.16”. iii)Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may fit on the facts and circumstances of this case.” At the time of issuance of notice of motion, the termination of the services of the petitioner was stayed. Separate replies filed by the respondents succintly bring out the fact that 10 posts of Project Officers were created by the Bureau of Public Enterprises in the year 1992 and thus the pressing necessity of the termination of the services of the petitioner stood adequately addressed and the petitioner thus continues to work as a Project Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings has referred to Annexure P-12 which is the decision taken by the Board of Directors of Bank, the relevant of which is extracted herein:- “i) The Project Officers filed a writ petition in Hon'ble High Court for grant of pay scale of AMs/Dos which was disposed of vide Court's order dated 22.4.1997 directing RCS to take a decision but was ultimately not granted by RCS ii) A court order dated 13.6.1996 staying CWP No.8715 of 1996 (O&M) 3 proceedings of BODs meeting dated 14.6.1996 in respect of Project Officers is pending. iii) At the time of re-structuring of staff by HBPE in the year 2004, 8 posts of Project Officers have been abolished and the posts have been placed in diminishing cadre. It is, therefore, recommended that BOAs may consider to place the above 3 Pos at the tail of list of AMs / Dos on the date the posts are revived by HBPE as a personal measure and subject to the decision of the Hon'ble Court.” It is thus the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid the instant writ petition may be disposed of as the pendency of this writ petition is now an impediment for the further decision to be taken by the respondents as reflected in Annexure P-12 and the relevant of which stands extracted above. Mr. S.S.Dalal, learned counsel appearing for the Bank has filed a reply in the Court today which is taken on record and has referred to Annexure R2/1 which is the decision taken by the Bank wherein the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 29.8.2008 accepted the recommendations of the Committee and decided that the matter be referred to Haryana Bureau of Public Enterprises for its consideration. According to learned counsel for the respondent Bank the decision now has to be taken by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies as the matter has been taken out from the purview of Bureau of Public Enterprises as is evident from the notification dated 1.9.2008 attached as Annexure R2/2. In view of the aforesaid the only prayer that the learned counsel for the petitioner makes in the given set of circumstances is that his writ CWP No.8715 of 1996 (O&M) 4 petition be disposed of with a direction that necessary action be taken pursuant to the decision taken by the Board of Directors and as contained in Annexures P-12 and R2/1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioner is not unjustified. His principal employer has already taken a decision which is on record as Anenxures P-12 and R2/1 and thus there seems to be no reason why such a decision be not implemented. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent no.1 to take necessary steps to implement the decision Annexure P-12 and R2/1 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from today December 13, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge