WRIT PETITION 336 of 2015 on 8 July 2015

1. Heard.

2. This is an appeal challenging judgment and order dated 08.07.2015 passed by the writ court in Writ Petition No.6490 (S/S) of 2010 by which petition of the appellant herein has been disposed of with the observation that benefits of the services rendered by the appellant on deputation since 1997 shall be considered for extending all service benefits but as per Government Order dated 11.08.2008, past service of the appellant-petitioner rendered in the erstwhile U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. cannot be taken into consideration by the subsequent employer i.e. U.P. Co-operative Rural Development Bank Ltd., Lucknow where his services were absorbed.

3. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that while referring to the G.O. dated 11.08.2008, the writ court omitted to consider the relevant portion of the government order which permits the benefit of past services in the absorbed department and has only considered other portions of the government order. He also places reliance upon a judgment of learned Single Judge rendered in Writ Petition No.2646 (S/S) of 2002 [Reeta Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] on 07.04.2009.

4. Ms. Alina Masoodi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Co-operative Bank submits that firstly the G.O. dated 11.08.2008 is applicable to government servants and not to employees of a co-operative bank such as respondent no.1 nor has the said government order been adopted by the Co-operative Bank, therefore, reliance placed thereon is misconceived. Secondly, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant as referred hereinabove is also not applicable as it does not pertain to co-operative bank rather in that case the absorption was in a department of the government, therefore, reference to the relevant government orders was made. Thirdly, she says that in the order dated 19.07.2010 which was impugned before the writ court itself mentions the fact that G.O. dated 11.08.2008 was not applicable to the Bank. The said order further goes on to state that the appellant-petitioner had in fact resigned and surrendered his lien in his parent Corporation before joining on absorption in the Corporation. For all these reasons, she says that the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. In response, learned counsel for the appellant refers to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of 'G. Govinda Rajulu vs. Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation' reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1801.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, we find that it is not in dispute that the basis for claiming inclusion of past services rendered in erstwhile Corporation in the services rendered by the appellant-petitioner in the Co-operative Bank consequent to his absorption, is a Government Order dated 11.08.2008. The said government order is not in respect of co-operative societies or co-operative banks. No such provision has been provided under any statute governing functioning of co-operative bank or the service conditions of officers and employees of a co-operative bank under which a government order could be issued in this regard or the government order referred by the appellant dated 11.08.2008 could be referable, nor has any such provision been placed before us. As regards reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant upon a Single Judge Bench judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.2646 (S/S) of 2002 on 07.04.2009, is concerned, in that case, the petitioner was absorbed in a government

department, therefore, the said judgment by itself cannot be applied in the case at hand. A co-operative Bank is a statutory bank which is constituted/ established under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act, 1965'). The terms and conditions of its officers and employees is governed by Regulations made under the Act, 1965, namely, U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. No such provision has been pointed out in the said Regulations under which benefit claimed by the appellant-petitioner could be granted. As the G.O. dated 11.08.2008 itself is not applicable and as no other provision whether in a statute or any resolution etc of the Bank where the appellant-petitioner was absorbed that too after resigning and surrendering his lien in the parent Corporation, has been placed before us which could support the claim of the appellant. We have also perused the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred hereinabove and having gone through the same, we do not find any proposition of law laid down therein for universal application.

7. For all these reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the writ court. In fact, the writ court ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of non-applicability of the G.O. dated 11.08.2008. Our order shall, however, not come in the way, in considering the services rendered by the appellant-petitioner while on deputation to the Co-operative Bank for the purposes of grant of service benefits as directed by the learned Single Judge as far as it may be permissible in law.

8. Subject to the above, the appeal is dismissed.

October 10, 2025Shanu/-

(Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)