Telangana High Court
WP/20308/2005 of D.Prabhu, Vs The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society on 28 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20308 of 2005 Dated: 28-12-2005 Between: D.Prabhu. .. PETITIONER AND The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited and others. .. RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Secretary in the first respondent society. He was
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.20308 of 2005
Dated: 28-12-2005
Between:
D.Prabhu.
.. PETITIONER
AND
The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited and others.
.. RESPONDENTS
ORDER:
The petitioner was employed as a Secretary in the first respondent society. He wasplaced under suspension, through orders, dated 24-02-2001, by the Society oncertain allegations. The petitioner filed W.P.No.4786 of 2004, before this court,challenging the order of suspension. The writ petition was disposed of directing therespondents to pay the subsistence allowance. The petitioner states that hedeposited a sum of Rs.44,185/- which was said to be the liability fixed against him inthe surcharge proceedings initiated under Section 60(1) of the A.P.Co-operativeSocieties Act. The Managing Committee of the first respondent passed Resolutiondated 24-04-2004 reinstating the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is thatthough the first respondent has decided to reinstate him into service, he has notbeen permitted to resume charge, and seeks appropriate directions in this regard.
This court ordered notice before admission on 15-09-2005. The notice has since been served on the contesting respondents. The first respondent filed counteraffidavit, denying the allegation of the petitioner. However, it is not disputed that theManaging Committee of the first respondent passed Resolution dated 24-04-2004,directing reinstatement of the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitionerhimself did not turn up to join duty and submitted a letter dated 24-11-2005,representing that he did not join duty on account of ill-health.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the firstrespondent.
The fact that the petitioner was directed to be reinstated through a Resolution of theManaging Committee dated 24-04-2004 is not in dispute. The controversy is as towhether it is the first respondent, which has prevented the petitioner from joiningduty, or whether the lapse was on the part of the petitioner, in reporting to duty. Aperusal of the letter, dated 24-11-2005, submitted by the petitioner discloses that hedid not join duty on account of his ill-health. Though an effort is made by thepetitioner to explain the circumstances under which the letter was issued, this courtis not inclined to deal with the same. The very fact that the petitioner approached thiscourt at a later stage, would disentitles him from claiming any benefits for the period,between the date of Resolution and the date of filing of the writ petition.
Whatever may have been the circumstances that resulted in denial of benefit ofjoining the service to the petitioner consequent on the Resolution of the Societydated 24-04-2004, the first respondent does not raise any serious objection, forjoining of the petitioner into duty. In fact, they have to respect their own Resolution.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition isdisposed of, directing the first respondent to take the petitioner on duty with effectfrom 02-01-2006. In view of the letter dated 24-11-2005, it is observed that thepetitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages. No order as to costs.
_____________