NAVNEET KUMRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in both the writ petitions claim themselves to be working in the Establishment of a Sugar Mill as Seasonal Staff and they claim that the impugned orders which are founded on the strength of the official Gazette dated 17.4.2010 are invalid and illegal inasmuch as the Notification dated 17.4.2010 is ultra vires to the provisions of Section 2 (i) of the U.P. Sugar Cane Regulations of Supply and Purchase Act 1953 and is even otherwise arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that even if the same is legally sustainable, it cannot be given a retrospective effect and secondly keeping in view the provisions of the Regulations including that of transfer as contained in Regulation 60 of the U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulations 1975. The definition of "Crushing Season" now introduced under the impugned notification deserves to be quashed as it militates against the interest of the petitioners, who were protected in their seasonal engagement under the definition contained in Regulation 2 (n) relating to crushing season.

(3.) The challenge is to the Notification under Section 122 of the UP. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 which has been issued after hearing the parties. The impugned Notification clearly recites that in view of the provisions of Section 122 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act read with Section 21 of the U. P. General Clauses 1904 as well as Rule 200 of the U.P. Cooperative Cane Service Rules 1975, the definition of the word "crushing season" was being altered to redefine the period commencing from the date when the crushing of sugar cane in the concerned sugar factory commences till the crushing ends.