Ashwani Ramesh vs State of H.P. & Ors.

By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order Annexure P-8, dated 12.10.2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the observations made in the said order amounting to character assassination may also be quashed and set aside.

(iii) The respondents may be directed to give the incentives to the petitioner as per Annexures P-2 and P-3 and to release the amount due to him along with up to date interest of 12% from the date the amount was due to the petitioner. Any other order which this Hon''ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."

Case of the petitioner is that vide notification dated 09.06.2003 (Annexure P-1), he was posed as Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Bank) in the Directorate of Cooperation, H.P. Shimla-9. Thereafter, petitioner was entrusted with the work of arbitration pertaining to respondent No. 3 Bank.

An office order dated 24.09.2001 (Annexure P-2) stood issued by Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, in which it was mentioned that that an official arbitrator of the Co-operative Department shall be entitled to get an arbitration fee of Rs.300/- for deciding a dispute except the disputes covered under Section 72(2)(c), which are referred to him under section 73 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, read with rule 89 of the rules made thereunder. It further stood mentioned that no arbitration fee shall be paid to an arbitrator if the dispute is not finally decided by him within a period of four months from the date of actual reference to him by the Registrar. It also stood mentioned that the party referring a dispute shall deposit in advance the arbitration fee and cost for deciding a dispute.

Said office order was superseded by another office order dated 10.02.2003 (Annexure P-3). Annexure P-3 contemplated that an official arbitrator of the Co-operative Department may be entitled to get an arbitration fee of Rs.300/- for deciding a dispute referred to him under section 73 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, except the dispute covered under section 72(2)(c). It was further mentioned in the said office order that the arbitration cases may ordinarily be decided within a period of four months. However, the competent authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, may extend the period for deciding a dispute on case to case basis. It was further mentioned that no arbitration fee shall be paid to an official arbitrator if the dispute was not decided within the stipulated or extended period.

According to the petitioner, he was entitled for receipt of an amount of Rs.300/- per case which shall be decided by him in his capacity as an arbitrator vide Annexures P-2 and P-3. He made a representation in this regard and sent reminders also. Respondent Bank sought clarification from Registrar, Co-operative Societies but no favourable response was conveyed to the petitioner. In these circumstances, he filed OA No. 2327 of 2006 before learned Tribunal, which stood transferred to this Court, registered as CWP(T) No. 13859 of 2008 and was disposed of vide order dated 19.08.2011 (Annexure P-7), as per which respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is that his representation stood rejected by the respondent Bank arbitrarily vide Annexure P-8 dated 04.11.2011.

Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

According to the petitioner, reasonings given in Annexure P-8 while rejecting the representation of the petitioner are not in consonance with Annexures P-2 and P-3 and further the observations made by the officer in order Annexure P-8 are not sustainable because the same were made at the back of the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of being heard.

Respondents No. 1 and 2 through their replies have tried to justify the issuance of Annexure P-8 on the ground that Annexures P-2 and P-3 were to take care of those officers who in the course of their duty were also called upon to perform the job of arbitrator and the same was not made to confer benefits upon persons like the petitioner exclusively stood deployed for adjudication of arbitral disputes as envisaged under the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968.

Be that as it may, a perusal of Annexure P-8 demonstrates that Managing Director of respondent No. 3 Bank while assigning reasons as to why the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits as envisaged in Annexures P-2 and P-3 has also made remarks with regard to the functioning of the petitioner. The allegation of the petitioner is that these remarks have been made at his back as he was not heard before the said impugned order was passed by respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 Bank has not filed any reply to the writ petition and averments made to the effect that he was condemned unheard when Annexure P-8 was passed, have not denied in so many words which so stands filed by respondents No. 1 and 2. In this factual background, in my considered view, it will be in the interest of justice if the present writ petition is disposed of by setting aside order Annexure P-8 so passed by the Managing Director with further direction that respondent No. 3 shall pass a fresh order on the representation of the petitioner after hearing the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Annexure P-8 including the order passed by the Managing Director of respondent No. 3 Bank is set aside and respondent No. 3 is directed to pass a fresh order on the representation of the petitioner in consonance with the earlier judgment passed by this Court in CWP(T) No.13859 of 2008 (OA No. 2327 of 2006) dated 19.08.2011 after hearing the petitioner. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and respondent No. 3 shall pass an order without being influenced by any observation made by this Court in the present judgment. It is clarified that the decision so taken by respondent No. 3 shall be a reasoned and speaking decision.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of.