Madras High CourtWP/2220/2019disposed of

C.Murugesan v. The Registrar Of Cooperative

2022-09-02Honourable Mr Justice R. Suresh Kumar8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 02.09.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR WP.No.2220/2019 & WMP.No.2503/2019 C.Murugesan ..

Petitioner

Versus

1.The Registrar of Cooperative Societies Chennai 600 010.

2.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies Salem Region, Salem 636 001.

3.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies Omalur Ciricle, Omalur, Salem District 636455. 4.The President The TANGEDCO Mettur Workshop Circle and Thermal Power Station II Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., No.S544 Mettur Dam 636 401.

Respondents Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents and their subordinates from interfering with the service condition of the petitioner in terms of Settlement dated 24.11.2012 under ID Act, 1947,

entered into between the management of the 4th respondent Society and its employees.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Puuniakotti For R1 to R3 : Mr.U.M.Ravichandran Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram Standing counsel

ORDER

(1)The prayer sought for herein is as follows:- ''Writ petition filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents and their subordinates from interfering with the service condition of the petitioner in terms of Settlement dated 24.11.2012 under ID Act, 1947, entered into between the management of the 4th respondent Society and its employees.''

(2)The petitioner was initially appointed as Office Assistant with a monthly salary of Rs.150/- at the 4th respondent/Society on 01.12.2001. Thereafter, promotion was given as Jewel Appraiser and his salary has also been increased by bringing him under the Time

Scale of Pay some time in the year 2017 and the petitioner had been working in that capacity for 16 years, i.e., from 2001-2017. (3)While so, on 07.07.2017, the 4th respondent issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why his promotion given, which according to the 4th respondent is against the bye-law and the statute governing the functioning of the 4th respondent/Society, shall not be cancelled.

(4)In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner has given a detailed reply on 03.08.2017 where he has made averment justifying his appointment and promotion and also he pleaded that since he had been working for 16 years in that capacity as Jewel Appraiser that is the promotion post given by the 4th respondent/Society which according to him based on the Notification or Letter issued in this regard by other official respondents. However before passing any order in this regard the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. (5)The learned counsel for the petitioner would canvass the point that there has been a Settlement under Section 12[3] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Management and the Employees'

Union based on which the promotion was given and the Time Scale of Pay under which the petitioner has been brought in is protected as the said 12[3] Settlement would be in force till the 7th Pay Commission Recommendation is being implemented and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the proposed action as has been indicated in the show cause notice issued by the 4th respondent on 07.07.2017 is to be dropped and in order to restrain the 4th respondent from proceeding further in interfering with the service conditions of the petitioner, the present writ petition since has been filed, he has pleaded for issuance of a writ of mandamus as prayed for.

(6)However, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the initial appointment of the petitioner as Office Assistant itself was without the name being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Assuming that for contingency if he was appointed as Office Assistant with a meager salary of Rs.150/-, subsequently, on what basis promotion was given as Jewel Appraiser and the petitioner was brought under the Time Scale of Pay is not in consonance with the bye-laws of the Society and also the Rules which were in vogue.

against such promotion given to the petitioner. Hence, the show cause notice was given by the 4th respondent/Society on 07.07.2017 for which though the petitioner claimed to have given reply on 03.08.2017, he has rushed to this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking prohibitory order against the respondents, especially, the 4th respondent from taking any action pursuant to the show cause notice. Therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that this writ petition can be disposed of giving liberty to the 4th respondent/Society to take action pursuant to the show cause notice dated 07.07.2017 of course, by considering the reply given by the petitioner dated 03.08.2017.

(7)I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides and I have perused the materials placed before me.

(8)Though it was claimed by the petitioner that the appointment given to the petitioner and the subsequent promotion he earned by bringing him under the Time Scale of Pay by various proceedings issued by the 4th respondent/Society are in consonance with the bye-laws as well as the terms of the 12[3] Settlement entered into between the parties, the 4th

respondent/Society has issued the show cause notice on 07.07.2017 pursuant to which the petitioner also since has given a detailed reply on 03.08.2017, at this juncture no prohibitory order can be issued against the respondents especially the 4th respondent/Society from proceeding further as per law pursuant to the show cause notice. (9)In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following order that there shall be a direction to the 4th respondent/Society to consider the reply / representation given by the petitioner dated 03.08.

2017 and in this regard, if any further in put which have to be supplied by the petitioner, it is open to him to supply the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this and on receipt of the further input based on the reply given by the petitioner dated 03.08.

the 4th respondent/Society thereafter.

(10)With these directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 02.09.2022 AP Internet : Yes To 1.The Registrar of Cooperative Societies Chennai 600 010.

2.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies Salem Region, Salem 636 001.

R.SURESH KUMAR, J., AP 02.09.2022