APHC010312292002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15015 of 2002 Bench Sr.No:-28 [3506] S. Partha Saradhi ...Petitioner Vs. Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Cooperation Department and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Sri V. V. L. N. SARMA Advocate for Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 29th January 2026 ORDER: Present writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Lr.Rc.No.149/2002, dt.5-7-2002, and the consequential orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.3/2002-3, dt.19-7-2002, referring to the Letter, dt.20-6-2002, of the 2nd respondent terminating his services, as illegal and arbitrary, unreasonable, null and void and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act and A.P.Shops and Establishments Act etc., and grant such other just and consequential relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case….” 2. Petitioner is stated to have been appointed as Clerk-cum-Salesman in 3rd respondent Credit Society on 112.11.1993. However, later, the 2nd respondent appears to have addressed a letter, dated 20.06.2002, to the 2 CGR, J. W.P. No.15015 of 2002 3rd respondent in compliance of the provisions of Section 116-C(1) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”), which envisage and place an embargo on the powers of the Society to fix staffing pattern, qualifications, pay scales and other allowances to the employees, which to be undertaken with prior approval of Registrar of Cooperative Societies subject to the same being within the permissible expenditure as set out therein. In the said communication, it was pointed out that the 3rd respondent Society has far exceeded the expenditure towards the employees than that permitted under the aforesaid provision. In consequence thereto, the 3rd respondent Society stated to have issued show-cause notice, dated 05.07.2002, to the petitioner calling for explanation as to why he should not be relieved from service on account of non-compliance of Section 116-C(1) of the Act. Petitioner immediately submitted explanation on 11.07.2002. Eventually, the 3rd respondent Society has passed orders, dated 19.08.2002, terminating the services of the petitioner forthwith. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of termination on the face of it is sheer abuse of provisions of the Act and the CapEx that is provided under Section 116-C(1) of the Act with respect to the expenditure that the Society to incur on account of the staffing pattern and the allowances to the staff clearly would not take within its purview the contingent expenditure as well. It is his case that if 3 CGR, J. W.P. No.15015 of 2002 contingent expenditure is excluded, the expenditure shown in the accounts of the Society would definitely fall within the permissible expenditure under Section 116-C(1) of the Act, therefore, the order is vitiated for extraneous consideration. 4. Perused the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In order to decide aforesaid controversy, it is apt to refer to Section 116-C(1) of the Act which reads as follows: “Section 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 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.” 6. The aforesaid provision has laid down two embargos on the powers of the Society to revise its own staffing pattern, qualifications, pay scales and other allowances. First being that any such appointment or decision should be with prior approval of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, and secondly, that the expenditure that would be incurred towards the pay and allowances should not exceed 2% of working capital or 30% of gross 4 CGR, J. W.P. No.15015 of 2002 profit in terms of the actuals in a year, whichever is less. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the communication that was issued by the 2nd respondent envisages two aspects, one was that the appointment was made without securing prior permission from the competent authority and secondly, the expenditure towards employees' allowances far exceeded the limits specified under the aforesaid provision. 7. Show-cause notice came to be issued on the count that the appointment of the petitioner was without prior permission as envisaged above. The explanation offered by the petitioner clearly did not deal with the said aspect neither denying the same nor showing compliance thereof. The impugned order, therefore, came to be passed by holding that the appointment was without prior permission, which, therefore, was contrary to Section 116-C(1) of the Act. I really do not see any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as petitioner’s initial appointment was not preceded by any such prior permission. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:29.01.2026. cs