STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MUKUNDPRASAD CHANDUBHAI VALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Letters Patent Appeals No. 481, 478, 479 of 1995 have been filed by the State challenging the oral judgement dated 07/8/3/1995 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the petitions filed by the original petitioners. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1070 of 2011 has also been filed by the State challenging the oral order dtd. 9/3/2010 passed by the learned Single Judge who allowed the petition of the original petitioner in terms of the oral order dated 07/8/3/1995 which are a subject-matter of challenge in the other appeals. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1082 of 2001 has been filed by the original petitioner challenging the order dtd. 24/2/1994 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition in absence of the advocate and on merits.

(2.) Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, they are taken up together and decided by this common judgment.

(3.) The original petitioners before the learned Single Judge were engaged as Clerks to carry out liquidation proceedings of the respective societies in question. It was the case of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge that the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies appointed Co-operation Officers (Liquidators) for carrying out liquidation proceedings of various societies. A circular was issued on 3/7/1986 by the Registrar, Co- operative Societies inter alia stating that liquidation proceedings initiated against the concerned societies under Sec. 107 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act be completed and the liquidation officers may engage persons for discharging relevant functions or duties. The District Registrars in turn appointed the petitioners as Clerks to carry out the liquidation process of the concerned co-operative society. The appointments were made on a fixed pay basis with an understanding that the salary would be paid from the funds of the society which were in liquidation. Having worked for several years as Clerks appointed by the liquidators, these petitioners approached this court by filing respective petitions.