IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.27842 of 2005 Between: M.Bhaskar Reddy … Petitioner and The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Chinnagottigallu (M), Chittoor District, Rep. By its PIC/President and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.27842 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the salary to the petitioner from 01.11.2002 to 18.01.2005 as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the salary to the petitioner from 01.11.2002 to 18.01.2005. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed in the year 1979 as paid Secretary in the service of the 1st respondent, Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Chinnagottigallu. Thereafter, on mutual understanding between the 1st and 2nd respondent, he was deputed to the 2nd respondent Society, Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Erracheruvupalli. On 12.12.2002, the 2nd respondent Society repatriated the petitioner and surrendered him to the 1st respondent Society. During the period from December, 2001 to 12.12.2002, he was not paid any salary by the 2nd respondent. Further, it is submitted that after receiving relieved orders from the 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent with a request to take him back into service as he was originally an employee of the 1st respondent. But the 1st respondent did not take him back into service. On approaching the 5th respondent, District Cooperative Officer, he directed the respondents 1 and 2 to act in accordance with the agreement and take back the petitioner into service. Thereafter, vide Proceedings dated 18.12.2002, the petitioner joined in the officer of the 3rd respondent, Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Pulicherla. Though the petitioner worked there up to 30.06.2003 he was not paid the salary even by the 3rd respondent also. Thereafter, on receiving the relieved orders from the office of the 3rd respondent on 30.06.2003, the petitioner again approached the 1st respondent but the 1st respondent did not take any positive steps to take him back into service. Therefore, the petitioner, earlier, filed W.P. No.12982 of 2003 and this Court passed interim direction to the 3rd respondent to continue the petitioner in service and eventually allowed the said writ petition directing the 1st respondent to take back the petitioner into service and accordingly, he joined the service of the 1st respondent on 18.01.2005. His eventual submission is that from 01.11.2002 to 18.01.2005 he did not receive any salary from the respondents 1 to 3 but he had taken some advance salaries from the 2nd and the 3rd respondents. In this regard, he made representations based on which, the 5th respondent issued circulars dated 03.06.2005 and 05.09.2005 to the 4th respondent requesting for payment of salary as per existing Act and rules and to take necessary action at their end. But no action has been taken, hence the petitioner filed the present writ petition. On behalf of the 5th respondent, denying the averments of the petitioner, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was deputed by the 1st respondent Society to the 2nd respondent Society on mutual consent and he is no way concerned with the transfers and deputations of the staff of P.A.C.S. and also no way concerned to pay the salaries to the staff. The Managing Committee of the P.A.C.S. is only authority to pay the salaries, if any. The respondents, under whose control the petitioner worked during the deputation period/claiming period, only need to pay the salary. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he worked in the respondents Societies on deputation for different periods, he was not being paid any salary and in the instant writ petition he is claiming the same. From the correspondence of the respondents in the matter, it is clearly stipulated that there is supervisory authority over the respondents 1 to 3 Societies. There is no dispute with regard to working of the petitioner in the Societies of the respondents 1 to 3 in different spells. That is the reason why the petitioner made representations to the supervisory authority to redress his grievance and in turn the 5th respondent directed the other respondents to see that the grievance of the petitioner is resolved by paying the salary during the period of deputation, as per rules. But it appears that no action has been taken to that extent. Though the 5th respondent specifically averred in his counter that the 4th and 5th respondents are no way concerned to pay the salary to the petitioner but they are the supervisory authority to see that the provisions of law made therein and also the Government Orders issued by the Government, from time to time, to be implemented. From the counter filed by the 5th respondent reveals that the petitioner worked during the relevant period under the control of the respondents 1 to 3 Societies but the petitioner was not being paid any salary. Therefore, I am of the view that the subordinate authorities should follow the letters/directions addressed by the superior authority. Under these circumstances, all the respondents are directed to consider and finalise the claim of the petitioner, by passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 13.06.2011 LSK