KASHI PRASAD TIWARI Vs. DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.10.1985 (Annexure-C). By which the respondent No. 1 was directed that since, as per the Registrar (Co-operative), directive dated 11.10.1983, there was no provision for appointment of Sahayak Samiti Sewak in the Samities having turnover of less than 9 lacs, such appointments made in the Samiti shall stand terminated w.e.f. 30.9.1995 and such Sahayak Samiti Sewak shall not receive any pay on and from 1.10.1985. As a consequence, the petitioner seeks a direction that he be allowed to join and his back wages be granted.

(2.) As per the case of the petitioner, on the basis of a resolution dated 19.12.1980 of the Sewa Sahkari Samiti, permission was accorded by memo dated 13.5.1981 (Annexure-A) of the respondent No. 1 Co-operative Bank for appointment of a Sahayak Samiti Sewak on condition that cost shall be borne by the Samiti. The petitioner was appointed and his appointment was confirmed by Annexure-B. However, impugned circular was issued terminating the services of Sahayak Samiti Sewak in Samitis having a turnover of less than 9 lacs. According to the petitioner, upon representation by him, he was appointed by order dated 7.10.1989 (Annexure-E) and then posted in Branch Barela vide order dated 7.12.1989 (Annexure-E/1). The petitioner was, however, not allowed to work although no order of termination was issued. The petitioner contends that he had sent various representations and even the local MLA and MP had sent letters to the concerned authorities for payment of the salary to the petitioner and for his reinstatement, but still the petitioner was neither paid the salary nor reinstated in service.

(3.) On a show cause notice being issued, the respondent No. 1 has filed a return in which the said respondent has pointed out that Annexure-E purporting to be the appointment order of the petitioner has not been issued by the respondent. The respondent being a Co-operative Bank, it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court as it is not state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and this apart, the petitioner had a remedy of filing a dispute under Section 55 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, if he was aggrieved by any order of the Samiti (Society) concerning his service conditions. The respondent No. 1 has, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the petition.