Court No. - 28
Reserved on 12.3.2018 Delivered on 30.03.2018
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 53954 of 2016
Petitioner :- C/M, District Cooperative Bank Ltd. And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sujit Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jeetendra Singh,Ravi Shankar Prasad,Sushil Kumar Rao
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Sujit Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners, Committee of Management, District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kanpur and Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Kanpur have filed this writ petition, praying for quashing of the order dated 07.06.2016, passed by respondent no.2, Joint Commissioner and Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Kanpur Division, Kanpur, whereby, the respondent no.3, Madan Chandra Gupta, former Cooperative Supervisor has been granted certain service benefits.
The brief facts of the petition are that the District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kanpur is a registered Central Cooperative Society, registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and the service conditions of the employees are governed by the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975. The respondent no.3 was appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor in the year 1978 and by the order dated 06.12.1987, he was attached by the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies/Chairman, District Committee Provincial Cooperative Union, Kanpur to District Cooperative Bank, Kanpur for recovery purposes. As per Circular dated 08.01.1988 issued by the Additional Registrar (Banking) Supervisors have been taken on deputation in the Banks. By another Circular dated 01.04.1988 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies whereby it was provided that the salary of the employees on deputation will not be less than the salary of their original post. The respondent no.3 filed a Writ Petition No.40003 of 1993 praying for direction to absorb him in the services of Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd., Kanpur. By the order dated 31.08.1998, the respondent no.3 was transferred to Shivrajpur Branch but it was cancelled and he was attached to the Head Ofice by the order dated 04.09.1998, which was stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No.29847 of 1998. His pay was fixed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kanpur by the order dated 23.05.2002 in pursuance of the order dated 17.10.2000 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Union, Lucknow. The respondent no.3 attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2011. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner sought amendment in the prayer for a direction to the respondents to revise his pay scale and post retiral benefits in the pay scale of Rs.6300-17580 payable to Branch Manager, Class-II in writ petition no.29847 of 1998. The Amendment Application of the petitioner was rejected but relying upon the order dated 23.05. 2002 whereby the salary of the respondent no.3 was fixed, this Court disposed off the writ petition by the order dated 11.04.2016 for deciding the claim of the petitioner for salary and post retiral dues by the competent authority, respondent no.2, Joint Commissioner and Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kanpur.
By the order dated 07.06.2016, the respondent no.2 directed the Bank to treat the respondent no.3 as absorbed employee, Class-II and directed payment of the pay scale of the post and post retiral dues of the petitioner. This order is under challenge in this writ petition.
The respondent no.3 has filed his Counter Affidavit stating that he was holding the substantive post of Co- Operative Supervisor in the U.P. Provincial Co-operative Union Limited. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies U.P. under 12th Programme Scheme passed an order dated 09.01.1988 for taking services of the Cooperative Supervisors on deputation. Respondent no.3 was deputed with effect from 15.02.1988 and on 09.11.1989 Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society U.P. Lucknow, who was the appointing authority, duly approved the deputation. In pursuance thereto the District Co-operative Bank Limited, Kanpur vide its order No.2907-14/ fu0la0@iz'kk0 vuq0&ih0,0@ 89-
90 dated 15.12.1989 appointed the respondent no.3 in Restoration Cell. Inspite of lapse of deputation period when the petitioner was not repatriated to the parent department on 16.10.1993, he filed a representation for his absorption/ regularization in the District Cooperative Bank. However, when the grievance of respondent no.3 was not redressed by the authorities concerned, the respondent no.3 preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.40003 of 1993 seeking the relief that a direction be issued for consideration of absorption/regularization in pursuance to the Circular of Registrar of Cooperative Societies U.P. dated 11.04.1988 and 05.06.1991. This Hon’ble Court passed an order dated 02.11.1993 directing the authority concerned to decide the petitioner’s (respondent no.3 herein) representation dated 16.10.1993. The petitioner/Committee of Management of the District Co-operative Bank Ltd., vide its Resolution No.16 (1- k) dated 30.07.1997 unanimously resolved that the respondent no.3 be absorbed/ regularized with effect from date of issuance of order i.e., 01.08.1997. It is relevant to mention here that the Committee of Management of the petitioner being appointing authority defined under Regulation 2(iii) of Regulation 1975 absorbed the respondent no.3 as Class-II officer w.e.f., 01.08.1997 of District Co-operative Bank Limited. In pursuance to the decision of the appointing authority, Secretary/ General Manager, District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kanpur after completing formalities, sent a letter to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow and Managing Director, U.P. Provincial Cooperative Union (PCU) for its approval vide letter dated 11.09.1997. Approval from the Registrar U.P. Co-operative Society Lucknow was accorded on 02.07.1998 and the respondent no.3 was absorbed as Class-II officer in the District Cooperative Bank Limited and posted as Branch Manager of Shivrajpur, District Cooperative Bank Limited, Kanpur. Pursuant to the order dated 31.08.1998, the respondent no.3 joined the post as Branch Manager at Shivrajpur Branch, Kanpur on the same day i.e., 31.08.1998. It is relevant to state here that the lien of the respondent no.3 in parent department i.e., U.P. Provincial Cooperative Union (PCU) was terminated by a detailed reasoned order dated 15.07.1998. After absorption of the respondent no.3 on Class-II post of Branch Manager in Bank Service, he was transferred and attached in the Head Office with the Senior Manager vide order dated 04.09.1998. The respondent no.3 being aggrieved by the transfer and attachment, preferred a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29847 of 1998 seeking following relief:-
(1). Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 4.09.1998 (Annexure No.11 to this writ petition).
(2). Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat petitioner in service and pay him salary from month to month as Class-II of the Bank service.
Member Secretary/Managing Director, U.P. Provincial Co-operative Union vide its letter No. 19127/Pradhio vyavo /610/842 Lucknow dated 19.02.1999 informed the petitioner that the approval of Registrar Co-operative Society, U.P. Lucknow had already been accorded on 02.07.1998. Moreover the respondent no.3 continuously performed the work in District Cooperative Bank Limited, Kanpur and during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., Kanpur vide order dated 23.05.2002 fixed the salary of the respondent no.3 in the pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000. The order dated 23.05.2002 has not been challenged by any party but on account of pendency of the writ petition, the respondent no.3 has not been given pay scale and in due course of service, the respondent no.3 was superannuated from District Co- operative Bank, Kanpur on 31.12.2011. After retirement, the respondent no.3 moved an amendment application in the aforesaid writ petition no.29847 of 1998 for incorporating the additional relief regarding revision of pay scales time to time. However, the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 11.04.2016 fially disposed of the writ petition with following direction:-
“ In such circumstances, challenge to the order of transfer has lost its efficacy. A perusal of records further goes to show that petitioner’s salary has been revised under the orders of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies U.P., Kanpur, vide order dated 23rd May, 2002. This order fixing petitioner’s salary is not under challenge. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to observe that in terms of he order dated 23rd May, 2002, petitioner would be entitled to payment of salary as well as retiral beneits. It shall be open for the petitioner to approach competent authority, in case any of his retiral dues have not been released, in terms of the said order as well as any subsequent revision, which may have been granted within a period of two weeks from today, along with certified copy of this order, and the concerned authority shall deal with such claim of the petitioner, by means of a reasoned speaking order, within a further period of six weeks.
Subject to the aforesaid observations made above, the writ petition is consigned to record.”
Thereafter, the answering respondent moved a representation to the Joint Commissioner & Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kanpur Division, Kanpur. In compliance of the Hon’ble High Court's order passed in Writ Petition the authority has passed the order dated 07.06.2016 after hearing both the parties by recording cogent and reasoned findings. After decision of the Joint Commissioner & Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, the petitioners filed a Special Appeal (Defective) No.705 of 2016, challenging the order dated 11.04.2016 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge and after hearing the counsels for the parties, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has disposed of the delay condonation application and dismissed the Special Appeal of the petitioners. Moreover, while dismissing the Special Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the direction issued for computation of salary and other retiral dues payable to the answering respondent in light of the order to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative dated 23.05.2002 does not suffers from any error and accordingly the special appeal was dismissed.
The petitioner filed his Rejoinder Affidavit stating that the service of the Bank employees are controlled and governed by the provisions known as U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Services Regulations, 1975 and except approval of the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board no appointment can be made in the Bank and under Regulations 1975 there is no provision of absorption to an employee. The statutory positions can not be curtailed by the Executive Officer merely by issuing a circular. Once the statute does not permit absorption to the employee on deputation then any proposal passed beyond the statute is not sustainable. Moreover this proposal has never been effected and no order of absorption has been passed. Any act which is not supported by the statute is only void and nothing else. The Registrar has not accorded approval on 2.7.1998 as such the copy of the said order dated 2.7.1998 has not been annexed by the respondent no.3 and also if there is no provision of absorption then no question arises to absorb respondent no.3 in service. The order dated 21.07.1998 does not discloses that the respondent no.3 has been absorbed in services of the Bank. The order dated 19.02.1999 itself states that the absorption of respondent no.3 has been cancelled vide order dated 4.09.1998. The salary of respondent no.3 has been fixed by the Deputy Registrar, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, meaning thereby that the respondent no.3 has not been absorbed. If he was absorbed then fixation must be done by the bank not by the Deputy Registrar who is appointing authority of the supervisors. The order dated 23.05.2002 has been accepted by the respondent no.3, meaning thereby that he has accepted him to be supervisor and he has attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2011. Once the respondent no.3 has not been absorbed in the services of the bank then no question arises to challenge the absorption. So far as the dismissal of the special appeal is concerned that will not come in the way of challenging the order passed by the Joint Commissioner and Joint Registrar because this is a fresh cause of action. The order of Joint Commissioner and Joint Registrar can not be treated to be an order passed under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 because this order has been passed in pursuance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Court. Admittedly respondent no.3 is a retired person but who will pay the post retiral benefit of respondent no.3 and whose employee is he is to be decided and the Joint Commissioner and Joint Registrar have wrongly held that respondent no.3 is the employee of the Bank vide order dated 07.06.2016, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph no.13 of the Judgment in the case of Mata Baran Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2012 (2) ADJ 189, which is as follows, “So far as the service rendered by petitioner for long time is concerned, it is well settled that long continuance, if the appointment has not been made strictly in accordance with law, would not confer any right upon incumbent to hold the post. The Apex Court in Shesh Mani Shukla (supra) J.T. 2009 (10) SC 309 held:
"It is true that the appellant has worked for a long time. His appointment, however, being in contravention of the statutory provision was illegal, and, thus, void ab initio. If his appointment has not been granted approval by the statutory authority, no exception can be taken only because the appellant had worked for a long time. The same by itself, in our opinion, cannot form the basis for obtaining a writ of or in the nature of mandamus; as it is well known that for the said purpose, the writ petitioner must establish a legal right in himself and a corresponding legal duty in the State."
He has also relied upon the Judgment in the case of
Deo Prabhakar Dubey and others Vs. District Co- operative Bank Ltd., Basti and others, short judgment as follows,
“Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner we are unable to find any substance in the contention that he was not given his seniority with effect from 1979 i.e. the date of appointment the petitioner was promoted to the post of Branch Manager. This promotion could not be made under Section 5(1) of the U.P. Co-operative Society Employees Service Regulation Act, 1975 without approval of the Board. The facts emerging out from the counter affidavit are that the petitioner was appointed by the Board on 13th August, 1981 and, therefore, he was not entitled to get his seniority with effect from the date mentioned above.
The writ petition is dismissed summarily.”
Further reliance has been placed on paragraph no.13 of the Judgment in the case Virendra Pal Singh and others Vs. The District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Etah and another, 1980 UPLBEC 202, In some of the cases it was urged that some persons who had been appointed before the Cooperative Society Employees Service Regulations 1975 were made under Section 122 of the Act, had been illegally discharged by the Administrator. On a perusal of the relevant affidavits and counter-affidavits we find that these appointments were made after the Constitution of the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board in whom vested the power of recruitment of employees of Cooperative Societies under Section 122 of the Act Pending the making of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations prescribing the method of recruitment etc. administrative instructions had been issued to all the Cooperative Societies that appointments to all posts in Cooperative Societies would be made by the Board, If despite the Constitution of the Board and the issuance of administrative instructions some Cooperative Societies chose to make appointments, such appointments have necessarily to be held to be invalid. The fact that regulations had not been made when the appointments were made did not empower the Committee of Management to make the appointments usurping the power of the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board. It appears that such persons as were appointed by the Committee of Management during the inter- regnum were given an opportunity to appear before the U.P. Cooperative institutional Service Board and were screened. Some were selected and some were not.”
Paragraph no.3 of the Judgment of Chandra Pal Singh Vs. U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others, has also been relied upon as follows, “According to Regulations 5 and 15, no person can be appointed whether by way of promotion or otherwise unless the same has been recruited/promoted on the recommendation of the respondent No.1 i.e. U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow. The Regulation goes on to say that any promotion/appointment, which is contrary to the Regulation, will be void as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Virendra Pal Singh and others V. The District Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Socities, Etah and another, 1980 U.P.L.B.R.C. 202, the relevant portion of the judgement is quoted below:
“If despite the constitution of the Board and the issuance of administrative instructions some Co- operative Societies chose to make appointment, such appointments have necessarily be held to be in-valid.”
The learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 has placed reliance upon paragraph no.27 of the Judgment in the case of G.S. Lamba Vs. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 604, which is as follows, “It was however contended that it is not permissible to infer that promotions in excess of quota were given by relaxing the quota rule because the posts in Integrated Grade II and III were within the purview of the Union Public Service Commission and the proviso to Rule 29(a) mandates that power to relax is hedged in with a condition that it can be done after consultation with the Commission, and there is nothing to show that the Commission was ever consulted. Undoubtedly, the proviso to Rule 29(a) requires that the controlling authority cannot relax any of the provisions of the rules in respect of posts which are within the purview of the Union Public Service Commission unless after consultation with the Commission. It was submitted that nothing is placed on the record by the petitioners to show that power to relax the quota rule was exercised after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. Assuming that there was no consultation, would the exercise of power to relax be vitiated and the appointments made in relaxation of the mandatory quota rule would be ab initio invalid. Commencing from the decision of the Privy Council in Montreal Street Railway Company v. Normandi,(1) it is well settled that 'when the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have not control over those entrusted with the duty and that at the same time would not promote the main object of the Legislature, in has been the practice to hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect of them, though punishable, not affecting the validity of the acts done.' The view was expressed in the context of the failure to revise list of Jurors by the Sheriff according to the revised statutes of Quebec and conviction was challenged on the ground of Mistrial held by selecting (1)AIR 1977 P.C. 142 Jurors from unrevised lists. The challenge failed. Coming home in h State of U.P. v. Manbodon Lal Srivastava(1) a Constitution Bench of this Court specifically held that where consultation with the Public Service Commission is provided as required by Art. 320(3)(c) of the Constitution such provision is not mandatory and they do not confer any rights on public servants so that the absence of consultation or irregularity in consultation does not afford him a cause of action in a court of law. There are number of subsequent decisions to which our attention was called reiterating the same principle. Therefore assuming there was failure to consult the Union Public Service Commission before exercising the power to relax the mandatory quota rule and further assuming that the posts in Integrated Grade II and Ill were within the purview of the Union Public Service Commission and accepting for the time being that the Commission was not consulted before the power. to relax the rule was exercised yet the action taken would not be vitiated nor would it furnish any help to Union of India which itself cannot take any advantage of its failure to consult the Commission. Therefore it can be safely stated that the enormous departure from the quota rule year to year permits an inference that the departure was in exercise of the power of relaxing the quota rule conferred on the controlling authority. Once there is power to relax the mandatory quota rule, the appointments made in excess of the quota from any given source would not be illegal or invalid but would be valid and legal as held by this Court in N.K. Chandan and Ors. v. State of Gujarat(2). Therefore the promotion of the promotees was regular and legal both on account of the fact it was made to meet the exigencies of service in relaxation of the mandatory quota rule and to substantive vacancies in service.”
On the basis of the above case laws the learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned order is illegal since the respondent no.3 has never been absorbed in service of the District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kanpur, hence the direction of payment of retiral dues of the respondent no.3 by the respondent no.2 by the impugned order dated 07.06.2016 is absolutely illegal. Further the direction of the respondent no.2 for payment of retiral dues of the respondent no.3 is absolutely illegal. In view of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, no appointment in a Cooperative Society can be made except in the manner provided for in the regulations in Regulation-5. The writ petition no.40003 of 1993 preferred for absorption by the respondent no.3 in service of the Bank, has already been dismissed in default on 08.01.2013 and therefore the relief to the petitioner to that extent stands denied.
The argument of the Counsel for the respondent no.3 is that the respondent no.3 was holding the substantive post of Co-operative Supervisor in the U.P. Provincial Co- operative Union Limited. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, U.P. under 12th Program Scheme passed an order dated 09.01.1988 for taking services of the Cooperative Supervisors on deputation and in pursuance thereto the District Co-operative Bank Limited, Kanpur vide its order dated 15.12.1988 appointed the respondent no.3 in Restoration Cell. It is further submitted that on 16.10.1993, the respondent no.3 filed a representation for his absorption/ regularization in the Cooperative Bank’s services. However, when the grievance of respondent no.3 was not redressed by the authorities concerned, the respondent no.3 preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.40003 of 1993 seeking absorption/ regularization in pursuance to the circular of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, U.P., dated 11.04.1988 and 05.06.1991. This Hon’ble Court passed an order dated 02.11.1993 directing the authority concerned to decide the representation of respondent no.3, dated 16.10.1993. The Committee of Management of the District Cooperative Bank Ltd., being appointing authority under the provision of U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975 prescribed under Regulation 2(iii) of the Regulations , 1975, vide its Resolution No. 16(1-d) dated 30.07.1997 unanimously resolved that the respondent no.3 be absorbed/ regularized with effect from date of issuance of order i.e., 01.08.1997. It is relevant to mention here that the Committee of Management of the petitioner being appointing authority defined under Regulation (2-iii) of Regulation 1975 absorbed the respondent no.3 as Class-II officer in Bank service w.e.f., 01.08.1997. Pursuant to the decision of the appointing authority, Secretary/General Manager, District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kanpur after completing formalities sent a letter to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow and Managing Director, U.P. Provincial Cooperative Union (PCU) for its approval vide letter dated 11.09.1997 and accordingly approval from the authorities were accorded. The respondent no.3 was absorbed as Class-II officer in the District Co-operative Bank Kanpur. Pursuant to the order dated 31.08.1998, the respondent no.3 joined the post on the same day i.e., 31.08.1998. It is relevant to state here that the lien of the respondent no.3 in parent department i.e., U.P. Provincial Cooperative Union (PCU) was terminated by a detailed reasoned order dated 15.07.1988. He has further argued that under the garb of challenging the impugned order after lapse of five year of retirement of the respondent no.3, the petitioner by twisting the facts has tried to challenge the absorption of the respondent no.3 in Class-II post in Bank service which is not permissible in law, as after retirement this issue cannot be permitted to be reopened now when the Special Appeal has already been dismissed and the order has attained finally. Absorption decision dated 30.07.1997 by the appointing authority has never been challenged nor has the fixation of pay scale of the respondent no.3 dated 23.05.2002 been challenged by any party thus without challenging both the orders the petitioners have no right to challenge the consequential orders. Admittedly, the respondent no.3 has retired from the office of the petitioners; thus after retirement, it is not open to the petitioners to deny the absorption and revise pay scale admissible to him. The pay scale was revised from time to time but their benefit has not been given to the respondent no.3. The order of the Registrar amounts to be passed Section 71 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, under Section 70 of the Act, the dispute between the Cooperative Societies and its Officer or employee can be adjudicated and once it has been decided by the Registrar, the decision of Registrar amounts to an award. The limitation for filing of an appeal against the award is prescribed under Section 97 of the Act and the time prescribed therein is only 30 days. But no appeal as provided under Section 97 has been preferred by the petitioners and after lapse of the limitation period, they filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable on the ground of alternative remedy provided under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. It is relevant to state here that the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 is a special act prescribing limitation of 30 days for filing of appeal. The petitioners after expiry of this period deliberately filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Registrar, as Section-5 of delay condonation application cannot be entertained in filing of the appeal; hence, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. The writ petition is not maintainable against the award as such liable to be dismissed in limine The Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, has passed the order dated 23.09.2016 after the decision of this Hon’ble Court dated 11.04.2016, directing the Secretary/Chief Executive Officer, Cooperative Bank Limited, Kanpur to make payment as per decision dated 07.06.2016.
After considering the pleadings of the parties, Case Laws produced and hearing the Counsels for the parties, it appears that by virtue of the order dated 11.04.2016, passed by this Court in Writ- A No.29847 of 1998 and affirmed by the order this Court passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 705 of 2016 directing computation of salary and other retiral dues payable to the respondent no.3 in the light of the order of Deputy Registrar dated 23.05.2002, the impugned order dated 07.06.2016 has been passed by the respondent no.2. The issues regarding deputation, non-absorption and violation of Regulation-5 & 15 of the U.P.Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 raised by the petitioner can not be considered in the present case, since this opportunity was available to the petitioner to be raise these issues before the Special Appeal Court, but no such issues were raised there and a clear finding has been recorded in the order dated 23.11.2016 of the Special Appeal Court that the learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any error of law or fact in the Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. There is nothing on record to suggest that the order dated 23.11.2016 was challenged before the Apex Court by the petitioners. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to raise the basic issues at this stage, which may be legally correct. The petitioner has already retired and such issues cannot be raised at this stage. The validity of the impugned order is upheld.
In view of the above discussions, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.03.2018
Ruchi Agrahari