M. P. State Co-Operative Oil Seed And Others vs Ravindra Lele

Sanjay Yadav, J

This Appeal Section 2(1) of The Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, against the order dated

16.04.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.2791/2005 (s) was filed at Indore Bench of this Court as Writ Appeal No.201/2009. That after its transfer to

Principal Bench it is re-registered as Writ Appeal No.332/2020.

2- The Writ Petition at the instance of respondent No.1 was against non consideration of the period from September 21, 1987 till December 16, 1993

for the purposes of assignment of seniority as well for the purposes of promotion.

3- Learned Single Judge on the findings that at one point of time the Board of Directors, M. P. State Co-operative Oil Seed Growers Federation Ltd.

had excluded the areas covered by Districts of Devas, Indore Ujjain, Dhar, Ratlam and Shajapur and had decided that said areas would be exclusively

controlled by the Regional Union. On the basis whereof, options were invited. The respondent No.1 opted for Indore. However, later the area of

District Indore was excluded from Regional Union level, but fresh options were not sought from the employees, which led the Kshetriya Sangh

Karamchari Union to file Petition: M. P. No.1360/1989 which was allowed by the Division Bench on 14.11.1992 holding that non inviting of fresh

option was discriminatory. Consequently, fresh options were sought. Respondent No.1 opted for Indore, accordingly his services were absorbed at the

State Level Federation vide order dated 16.10.1993. These findings led learned Single Judge allow the petition vide impugned order, holding â€

“Once the judgment of the Division Bench had been duly accepted by the State Level Federation, and fresh options were asked for, and had duly been accepted

by it from its employees, them such employees, for all practical purposes, were required to be treated as the employees of the State Level Federation, with a

continuous and uninterrupted service, without any break whatsoever. The directions issued by the Joint Registrar, through the order Annexure R-3, actually amounts

to nullifying the decision of the Division Bench, which had already attained finality. This cannot be accepted by this Court. Consequently, I find that the decision

Annexure R-3, dated February 26, 2005, taken by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, issuing directions to the respondent-Federation, for excluding the period

of such employees, during which they had remained at Regional Level, from service and for assigning seniority of such employees at the tail end, is not only contrary

to the directions issued by the Division Bench, through Annexure P-2, but is also clearly discriminatory, and a violation of right of equality guaranteed under Article

14 of the Constitution of India. The persons who are similarly situated, i.e., the ones who continued at the State Level, and those who on grant of fresh option, opted

for State Level, have been treated differently, without any jurisdiction. The communication Annexure R-3 is thus liable to be quashed, and is hereby quashed.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The respondent-Federation is hereby directed to treat the entire service of the petitioner, from the date of his

appointment onwards, as a continuous and uninterrupted service, with the State Federation, and assign him due seniority position on the basis of the aforesaid

continuous length of service. On assignment of due seniority place to the petitioner, he would also be entitled to be considered for his due promotions, from the date

his juniors were so promoted, in accordance with law, and shall also be entitled to all the consequential benefits.â€​

Â

4- We have heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant at length. Evidently, the respondent was in toe with the orders passed by Appellant while

opting for Indore when it was carved out a Regional Union. However, on its exclusion fresh option was not given to the employees which was faulted

with in M. P. No.1360/1989. The appellant having corrected their mistake however, erred in not granting the continuity in service, which being duly

addressed by learned Single Judge leaves no scope for interference in an intra-Court appeal. Further contention that the employee concern i.e.,

respondent No.1 ought to have availed the alternative remedy under Section 64 of M. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, is of no avail at such a

distant date and more particularly when the controversy stood settled with the passing of order by Division Bench in M. P. No.1360/1989 that non

calling of second option was discriminatory. Thus there was no factual dispute as would have prevented learned Single Judge from exercising the

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5- In view whereof, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.

Â