RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought issuance of writ of certiorari/Man-damus/Prohibition, for quashing the order dated 4th June, 1993, Annexure P-7, with a further direction to the respondents to allow him to continue in service against the available vacant post in view of the resolution passed by the Board of respondent No. 4, in its meeting held on 26th March, 1993.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Pharmacist by the CONFED vide its decision dated 29th June, 1992, the petitioner joined the office with effect from 1st July, 1992. Initially, he was appointed in the Co-operative Store at Naraingarh and after sometime, was transferred to the Co-operative Store at Jind. On 12th December, 1989, CONFED took a decision to terminate the services of a number of employees on a large scale ostensibly to meet the occurring financial losses. While taking this decision, it was also decided to abolish the common cadre of District Cooperative Stores and of the CONFED and to separate the Consumer Stores from it. Thus, in view of this decision, CONFED - the parent organisation, wrote letter to the Consumer Stores, Jind asking for absorption of the petitioner after taking his consent in this regard. The petitioner opted for transfer to Jind Store but before he could be appointed, another person, namely, Dharamvir Singh was appointed as a Pharmacist. So, the petitioner could not be accommodated at Jind Store. He was relieved from his services on 30th July, 1990, and was directed to join his duties with the CONFED-the parent organisation. Since the CONFED had already declared him surplus and had ceased to retain him or post him against another post, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.P. No. 10377 of 1990. This petition was disposed of vide order dated 29th January, 1991 in view of the statement made by the counsel for the CONFED to the effect that the CONFED was ready and willing to take back the petitioner in regular pay scale. Despite the undertaking given before this Court, the petitioner was not reinstated by the CONFED and was being harassed on one pretext or the other compelling the petitioner to file a contempt petition, C.O.C.P. no. 1065 of 1992 came up for final hearing before Justice J.S. Sekhon, on 28th April, 1993, wherein it was ordered that the petitioner be reinstated in view of the undertaking given by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and the CONFED will be at liberty to pass fresh orders retrenching the service of the petitioner in accordance with the rules and regulations. The petitioner was thus allowed to join with effect from 17th may, 1993, but soon he was retrenched vide order dated 4th June, 1993, which order per se was illegal, mala fide, discriminatory and the outcome of colourable exercise of power and thus unsustainable in law, as alleged in the petition.

(3.) Pursuant to the Notice of Motion issued by this Court, the respondents have put in appearance and filed written statement controverting the various averments made in the petition, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have filed separate written statements. Respondent No. 3 CONFED, in support of its order, Annexure P-7, made specific mention of the order passed by this Court on 28th April, 1993, in the Contempt Petition, wherein it was observed that the respondents will be at liberty to pass fresh orders retrenching the services of the petitioner in accordance with the rules and regulations, if it is no longer required, with a rider that no junior Pharmacist to the petitioner is retained in service. It has also been stated that the services of the petitioner had been terminated after complying with the provisions of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been stated that the petitioner was the junior most in the cadre of Pharmacists. Respondent No. 4-The Jind Central Co- operative Consumers Stores Ltd., by way of preliminary objection, has stated that the petitioner has no relation whatsoever with respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 is an independent body registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and hence not subordinate to respondent No. 3. Since the petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 3 and also retrenched by it, respondent No. 4 has no concern whatsoever with the petitioner. On merits, it has been stated that presently no vacancy is available with respondent No. 4. It was thus, prayed that the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same may be dismissed.