RAJENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Due to outbreak of pandemic COVID-19, the instant case is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

(2.) The instant civil writ petition by virtue of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by seven petitioners, who happen to be the different functionaries of the Kiloi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Kiloi, Tehsil and District Rohtak (in short 'the Society') so framed under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and Rules framed therein (in short 'the Act and the Rules'). In their petition, the petitioners claim that earlier a civil writ petition was filed by employees of different Cooperative Societies before this Court over the stoppage of salary of the employees and the CWP No.10 of 2020 was disposed off by this Court vide order dtd. 10/2/2020 as well as CWP No.25971 of 2019, copies of which have been annexed as P-1. It is claimed by the petitioner that they made a representation to the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies-respondent No.5 for implementation of the orders of this Court along with resolution of the Managing Committee (Annexure P-2). It is claimed that the Additional Chief Secretary in his orders dtd. 11/5/2018 in Revision Petition No. 32 of 2017 titled as 'Dalbir Singh versus The Registrar, Co-operative Society, Haryana, Panchkula', had observed that Registrar Cooperative Societies cannot make rules for recruitment and conditions of services of such employees but in terms of Sec. 34 (4) of the Act and Rule 29 of the Rules can certainly frame guidelines. Aggrieved over the orders (Annexure P-5) dtd. 4/9/2020 passed by respondent No.2, whereby, suspending the management of the Society, the present invocation has come about.

(3.) The stand of the respondents in unison is of total denial. It has been denied that the Staff Service Rules, 2020 (Annexure P4) were never framed in pursuance of resolution of the Society dtd. 28/5/2020 and no such resolution to that effect was ever passed, claiming that no detailed procedure has been passed by the Society which has led to the illegality of these Rules and has sought to displace the contentions of the petitioners that these Rules were legitimately passed or were applicable to the Society in question terming that there has been objection over the wrong exercise of powers under Sec. 37 of the Act as well as Rule 29 by the Society and there was no legal validity of the same and in its comprehensive reply, has sought to term the act of the petitioner to be illegal and the service Rules being ultra vires of the bye-laws of the Society sought dismissal of the petition.