OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the parties agree that the questions of law and facts involved in both the petitions viz. - 1932 and 5923 of 1991 are identical. Accordingly, these petitions can be disposed of by one order. The facts as mentioned in Civil Writ Petition No. 5923 of 1991 may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The petitioner herein was appointed as store keeper on March 11, 1981, by the Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Store Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Confed). On June 4, 1987, and Sept. 14, 1987, the Confed issued certain orders with regard to fixation of petitioner's pay. Vide orders dated March 16, 1988, and July 21, 1988, a direction with regard to the looking after of certain additional work responsibility was issued by the Managing Director of the Confed. On Sept. 15, 1989, vide order Annexure P-6, the petitioner was informed that he was not on the cadre of the Confed. Some time thereafter, the Board of Directors of the Mandi Dabwali Central Co-operative Consumer's Store Limited, Mandi Dabwali (respondent No. 3), passed a resolution noticing that the petitioner and certain other employees had not been given their salaries since Sept., 1989, and that the Board had decided to let the staff be withdrawn by the Confed. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued to the Confed for taking him back in service and for the quashing of its order dated Sept. 15, 1989.

(3.) In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been averred that the post, on which the petitioner had been appointed viz., Store Keeper, was originally borne on the common cadre, governed by the Staff Service Rules of Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Store Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The Board of Administrators of the Confed in their meeting held on Sept. 20, 1983, decided to amend Rule 1.3, as a result of which the persons working on the posts of Helpers, Peons, Drivers, Salesman, Clerks and store Keepers in various co-operative Stores were allocated to the Co-operative Consumers Store, where they were working on the date of enforcement of the Rule, i.e. Dec. 14, 1983. This amendment was approved by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, under Sec. 84(A) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, vide his order dated Dec. 14, 1983. It is claimed that as a result of this Rule, the petitioner ceased to be an employee of the Confed and came to the allocated to the Stores with respondent No. 3. It has been further averred that any employee aggrieved by the allocation was invited to make appeal to the Staff Committee. The claim of such persons as had filed an appeal was considered and an appropriate order was passed. However, the petitioner failed to file an appeal and consequently he stood allocated to the Stores w.e.f. Dec. 14, 1983. On this premises, it is claimed that the petitioner's employment with the Confed stood terminated and he had become an employee of respondent No. 3 only.