1 APHC010228242004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 14272/2004 Between: M.Shankara Rao, Visakhapatnam ...PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Cooperation Dept., rep.by its Secretary, Hyderabad and 5 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A PADMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. UTTARA LEGAL 2. GP FOR AGRICULTURE 3. GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.14272 OF 2004 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following main prayer, which reads as under: “to issue a writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus though Act 2 of 1994 is not applicable to the petitioner, by issuing the impugned proceedings Board Rc.No.1/30-06-2004, dated 01.07.2004 issued by the respondents 3 to 6 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Section.116- C of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and to pass………..” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as Day Deposit Clerk in the 6th respondent society vide resolution No.9 dated 26.09.1993 on commission basis. The 6th respondent fixed his salary at Rs.2,200/- per month. Subsequently, the same was escalated to the pay scale of Rs.310+388+87+39 = Rs.824/-. 3. Subsequently, the 6th respondent society authorities issued impugned proceedings in Rc.No.1/30.06.2004, dated 01.07.2004, wherein the petitioner’s services were terminated on the ground that appointment of the petitioner was not approved by the Registrar, as required under Section 116-C of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. 3 4. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that, questioning the very same termination orders dated 01.07.2004, one Sri V.Satyanarayana, who was working in the 6th respondent Society previously filed W.P.No.13227 of 2004 before this Hon’ble Court at Hyderabad. Further it is submitted that, the present writ petitioner is similarly placed as the said V.Satyanarayana, who approached this Court vide Writ Petition No.13227 of 2004. 5. The brief case of the respondent authorities is that the 6th respondent Society is functioning under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, i.e. Act 7 of 1964 and Rules there under. 6. As per Section 116(C) of the Act, a Society shall have the power to fix up the staffing pattern, pay scales and allowances for its employees with the prior approval of concerned Registrar only. However, it is contented that the instant appointment was not approved by the concerned competent authority and that, the 6th respondent society’s fiscal status is fluctuating. 7. Apparently, in the instant writ petition, at the time of admission, the then common High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, initially granted interim direction for a limited period on 12.08.2004. Thereafter, the same was extended until further orders vide orders dated 09.12.2004. 4 Thus, the said interim orders are still in subsistence. Thus, writ petitioner is still serving in the 6th respondent Society. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also asserted that,the then Hon’ble High Court of A.P at Hyderabad in W.P 13227 of 2004 was pleased to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.1/30.06.2004, dated 01.07.2004 issued by the very same Respondent,which had been instituted by the similarly placed person, i.e. one V.Satyanarayana, challenging the very same termination proceedings. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks this Hon’ble Court to pass similar orders by allowing the present writ petition. 9. On the other hand, the respondents not disputed the factumof allowing of writ petition No.13227 of 2004 vide final orders dated 05.11.2004. 10. In this backdrop, it is apt to extract the Section 116-C of the A.P Cooperative Societies Act, 1964:- As per Section 116-C of the Act, which reads as under: “[116-C. Staffing pattern of societies:— (1) A society shall have power to fix the staffing pattern, qualifications, pay scales and other allowances for its employees with the prior approval of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies subject to the condition that expenditure towards pay and allowances of the employees shall not exceed two percent of the working capital 5 or thirty percent of the Gross profit, in terms of actuals in a year whichever is less.] (2) No appointment or removal of a Chief Executive by whatever name called of any society, or class of societies as may be prescribed which are in receipt of financial aid from the Government, shall be made without the prior approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies.]” 11. Reverting back to the case on hand that the 6th respondent society had not followed the above statutory scheme. It appears that the similarly placed person who challenged very same impugned order dated 01.07.2004, the Common High Court of A.P at Hyderabad, pleased to pass the following final orders dated 05.11.2004 in W.P.No.13227 of 2004:- “Section 116-C of the Act is mandatory in nature and all the Societies are bound to fix the staffing pattern, qualifications, pay scales and other allowances for its employees and get the approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, showing the expenditure towards the pay and allowances not exceeding 2% of the working capital or 30% of the gross profit, in terms of the actuals in a year, whichever is less. On an earlier occasion, this Court in W.P.No.3171 of 2003 & batch, dated 30.08.2004 held that if the appointment of the existing staff of the Society are made in conformity with the mandatory provisions of Section 116-C of the Act, it cannot besaid that their appointments are in violation of Act 2 of 1994. As the appointment of the petitioner is not in violation of Section 116-C, read with Rules 28(4) & 36-B of the Rules, his services cannot be terminated. 6 In view of the above, the impugned proceedings, dated 01.07.2004 are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of Section 116-C of the Act. No costs” 12. Taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances, more particularly, in view of the final orders passed by the then common High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, dated 05.11.2004, this Court is of the considered opinion that, a similar order should be passed in the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.1/30.06.2004, dated 01.07.2004, passed by the 6th respondent herein against the present writ petitioner too. 13. Thus, in the result, by following the above orders in terms of judicial uniformity, the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.1/30.06.2004, dated 01.07.2004, issued by the 6th respondent herein, are set aside directing the 6th respondent to initiate appropriate steps, in accordance with the provisions of Section 116-C of the A.P Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 so far as the present writ petitioner too. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:10.01.2025 Rns 7 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.14272 OF 2004 Date: 10.01.2025 Rns