HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.4982/2008 P.C.Chandrol - V/s - M.P.State Cooperative Tribunal and others Present : Hon’ble Justice Shri Rajendra Menon, J.Hon'ble Justice Smt.Vimla Jain, J.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri D.K.Dixit, counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, Additional Advocate General for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, counsel for respondent no.3. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER
(03-09-2013) Challenging the order dated 25-02-2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by the M.P.State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.3, Bank in a proceedings held under Section 78(1) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the petitioner employees has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Facts in brief go to show that the petitioner was an employee in the Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Hoshangabad. He was appointed in the year 1980 and in the gradation list of Samiti Prabhandhak published on 31-03-1996, the name of the petitioner appears at serial no.79. Certain promotion orders were issued on 24-07-1996 and 22-08-1998 by which certain persons junior to the 2 petitioner have been promoted to the next higher post. It is said that the petitioner submitted representations questioning his supersession, the representation was submitted by him on 02-08-1996 and thereafter on 01-09-1998 and when nothing was done, he raised a dispute before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies after a period of more than 7 years on 20-01-2008 claiming promotion retrospectively w.e.f. 24-07-1996. Vide order dated 25-11-2004 (Annexure P-5) the Joint Registrar decreed the claim and being aggrieved by the same the Bank filed an appeal under section 78(1) of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Bank, hence this writ petition.
3. Shri Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal interfered with the order passed by the Joint Registrar on 25-11-2004 mainly on two counts. The first ground was that in the DPC which was held in the year 1996 and based on which order was passed on 24-07-1996, the claim of the petitioner was considered but on the ground of petitioner being untrained person and lack of supervisory capacity, the Tribunal held that the DPC did not recommend his case. Shri Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to certain documents available on record to say that the finding in this regard recorded by the Tribunal was incorrect as the petitioner was a trained person and the DPC did not consider his case properly, which was found favour when the claim was made after a period of more than 7 years under Section 64 read with section 4 of the M.P.Co-operative Societies Act, the claim should have been raised within 30 days but as the claim is barred 3 by time, it is held that the claim was not tenable, Shri Dixit, argued that even though in the cause title of the application filed before the Joint Registrar the claim was shown to be under Section 64 of the M.P.Co-operative Societies Act, but in the application Annexure P-4, an endorsement was made by the Joint Registrar at the time of the acceptance of the petition to be treated it as a dispute under section 53(2) of the M.P.Cooperative Societies Act, accordingly Shri D.K.Dixit, argued that the dispute was under section 53(2) of the M.P.Co-operative Societies Act, and therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in saying that the dispute was not maintainable under section 64. That apart Shri Dixit argued that with regard to dismissal of the claim on the ground of limitation, the Tribunal has committed an error in much as the representations of the petitioner were pending, they were not decided and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. C.P. Ghosh, AIR 199.SC 42.in a claim for promotion merely on the ground of delay, the Apex Court has held that the claim should not have been dismissed. Accordingly, Shri Dixit argued that in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, an error has been committed by the Tribunal and the same be interfered with. He also submitted that he has unblemished service career, no adverse C.R. was communicated to him and therefore, his supersession without communication of any adverse C.R. the Tribunal has committed an illegality. In support thereof, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others, AI”
2008. SC 251.to say that the adverse entry which is not communicated cannot be considered for denying promotion.
4. Shri S.A.Dharmadhikar, learned counsel for respondent no.3 refuted the aforesaid and submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are proper, the same does not call for any interference. It was argued by him that the dispute was filed for seeking promotion after a period of more than 7 years and as there was an inordinate delay, the Tribunal did not commit any error in dismissing the petition. Shri Dharmadhikari placed reliance on the various judgments of the Supreme Court which are reproduced in paras 17 and 18 of the order passed by the Tribunal to say that if the challenge is not made within a reasonable time, the claim cannot be adjudicated. That apart Shri Dharmadhikari argued that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion and in denying the promotion even on merit, no error has been committed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The moot question warranting consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim only on the ground of delay. Even though various contentions were raised and it was pointed out that the proceedings under Section 64 was not maintainable and even the Tribunal had taken note of these facts but the fact remains that the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies before whom the dispute was initially raised vide Annexure P-4 on 20-01-2003, in the left side has made a note that the dispute is filed under section 53(2) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act. That being so, the dispute has to 5 be treated as one under section 53(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act and we proceed to determine the question on so holding, section 53(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act gives power to the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies or delegated authority to determine the question with regard to condition of employment of person working in the Cooperative Societies registered under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Under Section 55(2), a provision has been inserted which contemplates that a dispute under section 55 has to be raised within a period of 30 days from the date of occurrence of the cause of action and the Registrar is given authority to conduct dispute even after expiry of 30 days, if the petitioner satisfies the Registrar or the Officer concerned that he had sufficient cause of not referring the dispute within the stipulated time. not the moot question for deciding this petition is as to whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal mainly on the ground that the claim made by the petitioner before the Joint Registrar was barred by time. The Tribunal has held that the cause of action for raising dispute arose on 24-07-96 when the first promotion order was issued and thereafter on 22-08-1998 when the second promotion order was issued and the petitioner is said to have been superseded. According to the petitioner, he submitted a representations on 02-08-1996 and 01-09-1998 and thereafter kept quite till 20-01-2003 I.e. more than 6 years and raised a dispute after a period of more than 7 years of the first promotion order and 5 years of the second promotion order, he only says that he was waiting for a decision on his 6 representation, he has not given any other justification or reason, except for saying that his representation was pending. He has not come out with any cogent reasons to say as to why he did not initiate action at the relevant time for grant of promotion to the juniors in the years 1996 and 1998. There is noting to say that the petitioner did not have any knowledge about the same. On the contrary, it is seen from the records that the petitioner submitted a departmental representation questioning his supersession vide letters dated 02-08-1996 and 01-09-1998. If the petitioner had questioned his supersession by these letters then merely because the representation was pending, it will not give a right to the petitioner to keep quiet over the matter and then challenge the promotion after a period of more than 6-7 years when the matters had settled down and rights of various persons crystallized. Merely submission of the representation is not enough to extend the period of limitation, in this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 199.SC 10.wherein similar contentions advanced with regard to condonation of the delay on the ground of representation being pending has been considered and rejected by the Supreme Court under . That apart Section 55(2), a dispute has to be raised within 30 days and the second proviso to section 55(2) permits the Cooperative Court to condone the delay and adjudicate the dispute after a period of 30 days only if sufficient cause is made out by the aggrieved person for not raising the dispute within the stipulated period. Mere submission of 7 representation and waiting for a decision on the representation is not sufficient cause for condoning the delay of more than 6 years in raising the dispute. That being so, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has not committed any error in dismissing the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay.
6. Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing has emphasized that before the Joint Registrar, when the matter was pending, no objection with regard to delay was raised and as no issue was with regard to the delay, the same could not be considered by the Tribunal. The question of delay in raising the dispute contrary to the statutory period of limitation prescribed can be raised at any pointy of time and therefore, this objection of Shri Dixit is not tenable. The petitioner has raised the dispute after a period of more than 7 years and has not given any justification or reasonable cause for the delay, therefore he is not entitled to seek any further indulgence into the matter. The judgment relied upon in the case of State of Orissa (supra) by Shri Dixit will not apply in the present case where statutory period of limitation is fixed by a specific provision.
7. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances finding no ground to interfered this petition is dismissed. . (RAJENDRA MENON) (SMT.VIMLA JAIN) JUDGE JUDGE hsp