HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 18608 of 1992 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Pratik Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for respondents. 2. This writ petition is of the year 1992 when the petitioner was aged about 54 years and now he is aged about 87 years suffering with medical ailment. 3. This writ petition is arising out of an impugned order whereby in exercise of powers U/s 68 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1955, the petitioner was not only directed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- but he was also terminated from service i.e. from the post of Supervisor with respondent - Cooperative Union Limited. 4. Initially this writ petition was allowed with cost vide order dated 31.08.2000 and for reference, relevant part of order is quoted below :- "The conduct of respondents in withholding the appellate order, clearly shows that answering respondents have misused their official position and petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed. Further, 'removal order' refers to no material to show application of mind. This order is not a speaking order. Termination order dated 04.07.1978 (annexure no. 9 to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bajrangi Mishra, M.P.Gupta, Pratik Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Mishra, K N Mishra, S.C., Triloki Nath Raj Bahadur Gaur .....Petitioner(s) Registrar Cooperative Societies U.P. Lucknow And Others .....Respondent(s) this writ petition) cannot be sustained under law. There is no indication in the counter affidavit as to when the appellate order was passed or communicated or when the order of removal was communicated to the petitioner. There being no positive averment that termination order was when communicated period of limitation cannot be calculated. If appellate order was passed and exists on record but not communication, it is a waste paper. In view of the reasons given above, the impugned order of removal/termination dated 04.07.1978 is quashed. A mandamus is being issued directing respondents to ignore the appellate order, if any, as alleged in the counter affidavit. Further, a mandamus is further issued directing the respondents to pay the petitioner all his arrears along with 12% per annum interest in accordance with law. Considering the conduct of the contesting respondents, the petitioner will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as cost of the petition within one month of receipt of this judgment's certified copy. If the petitioner has been superannuated the respondents are directed to ensure to complete all the formalities and make endeavour that petitioner is paid his post retirement amount within six weeks of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petition stands allowed with cost as stated above." 5. Aforesaid order was thereafter challenged by way of Special Appeal No. 663 of 2000 and same was allowed by order dated 10.06.2006 and matter was remitted back to learned Single Judge to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. 6. Sri Pratik Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner is able to show that if the proceedings are undertaken U/s 68 of the Act, only order could be passed would be to recover certain amount and since it was not a disciplinary proceedings, therefore, no order of termination could be WRIA No. 18608 of 1992 2 passed, however, order of termination, in fact, was passed. Accordingly, on face of it, impugned order does not survive so far as order of termination is concerned. 7. Argument of Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for respondents that petitioner was not even an employee of respondent cannot be considered at this stage since it is neither part of impugned order nor in appellate order. Even it is not mentioned in judgment of Division Bench while remitting the matter to learned Single Judge. 8. In above circumstances, now only question left for consideration is that since Court is of the view that order of termination is not legally justifiable, therefore, what relief could be given to petitioner who is aged about 87 years since no order of reinstatement could be passed. 9. In similar circumstances, Supreme Court has passed orders to grant lumpsum amount as compensation to employee (see Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital and others vs. Munna Prasad Saini and another, (2021) 12 SCC 466), therefore, considering that this matter is pending for more than 3 decades and petitioner is now aged about 87 years and is suffering with medical ailment also, therefore, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with an observation that impugned order so far as order of termination is concerned is set aside with a direction that respondents will pay Rs. 2,50,000/- to petitioner by way of a bank draft/RTGS within four weeks from today and for that petitioner will provide his bank details to respondents within two weeks from today. 10. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations and directions. October 7, 2025 N. Sinha WRIA No. 18608 of 1992 3 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad