JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 6.6.1987 and 30.5.1987, Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to finally absorb the petitioner as a member of the Cooperative Centralized Service and treat him as such in accordance with Rule 9 of the Co-operative Bank Centralized Service Rules, 1976.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Accountant in the Bahraich District Co-operative Bank w.e.f. 9.6.1959. He passed the training course in the year 1963 and was promoted as Branch Manager w.e.f. 26.1.1966 and was confirmed as such in the year 1967 vide resolution of May. 1967 of the Committee of Management of the Bank. The confirmation of the petitioner as Branch Manager was made from the date of his promotion i.e., 26.1.1966. Since a person Junior to the petitioner was promoted as Senior Accountant, hence the petitioner raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal against his illegal supersession. The Industrial Tribunal allowed the claim of the petitioner for the post of Senior Accountant vide award dated 17.2.1978. Annexure-1 to the petition. This award was not challenged and hence it became final and the bank adopted a resolution dated 12.12.1979 accepting the award and posting the petitioner as Senior Accountant. The petitioner has been continuously working as Senior Accountant and has been drawing his salary as such w.e.f. 4.3.1978.
3. The post of the Chief Accountant in the bank has been designated as Senior Accountant and after issuing the circular dated 18.12.1976 by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. the Bank issued a declaration in the year 1978 treating the post of Senior Accountant as Chief Accountant.
4. The Co-operative Bank Centralized Service Rules, 1976, were enforced from 1976 and initially the post of Secretary of the District Cooperative Bank, U.P., was included in the service. Rule 3 dealing with the creation of service, was amended by the first amendment Rule, in the 1983. Under the aforesaid amendment the posts of Secretary, Chief Accountant, Manager, Executive Officer and Development Officer were included in the service. On 12.9.1983 the petitioner being the Senior Accountant stood provisionally absorbed as member of the service in view of Rule 9 (1) of the Rules. Rule 9 (4) provides that the provisionally absorbed employees shall be finally absorbed as members of the service by the Administrative Committee. The Administrative Committee has been constituted under Rule 4 (b) and the Addl. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, nominated by the Registrar was to be Chairman of the Committee.
5. The functions and power of the cadre authority have been mentioned in Rule 6 whtch has been quoted in paragraph 17 of the writ petition. Rule 7 mentions the powers of the Administrative Committee which has been quoted in paragraph 18 of the petition.
6. Subsequent to the inclusion of the post of Chief Accountant in the Centralized service w.e.f. 12.9.1983 the petitioner sent a representation to the respondent praying for final absorption as member of the service. The bank wrote letters dated 3.5.1986 and 19.5.1986 asking the respondent to finally absorb the petitioner as member of the service as key personnel vide Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition. The Additional Registrar, Banking Co-operative Societies, U.P., who is ex officio chairman of the Administrative Committee wrote to the respondent No. 3 to see that the petitioner be finally absorbed as a member of the service against the post of key personnel and retain him in the District Co-operative Bank, Bahraich vide Annexure-4 to the petition.
7. In paragraph 22 of the writ petition, it is stated that the respondent, who is neither the appointing authority nor the authority competent to decide the question of final absorption, sent a letter dated 6.6.1987 describing the petitioner as Branch Manager and requiring him to appear on 22.6.1987 for interview for selection against the post of Senior Manager. True copy of the letter is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 further Issued a circular dated 30.5.1987 changing the designation carried by the post Included in the service vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition.
8. In paragraph 24 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the respondents have no jurisdiction and authority to change the designation of the post unless the State Government amends the Rules under Section 122A of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The U.P. Bank Employees Union and the petitioner separately wrote to the respondent not to treat the petitioner as Branch Manager and requesting that he be absorbed as member of the service Instead of asking him to appear in the selection vide Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition. It is stated in paragraph 26 of the writ petition that the State Government has not amended the Centralized Service Rules in regard to change of designation of the post included in the service. It is alleged in paragraph 27 of the writ petition that in case the petitioner is treated as Branch Manager and in case he is made to appear in the selection he will suffer serious injuries. Hence this petition.
9. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In paragraph 4 of the same, it is stated that the petitioner has not filed, any order issued by the Bank or the Registrar for treating the post of Senior Accountant as Chief Accountant. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that by the amendment dated 12.9.1983 only those who were working on the post Included in the centralized service were provisionally absorbed. The petitioner was not working on any of the aforesaid post (i.e., Chief Accountant, Executive Officer, Development Officer. Manager) and hence he cannot be absorbed. After the aforesaid amendment the information about the person working on the said post Included in the centralized service was called for from the hank for treating them as members of the centralized service temporarily. In the information sent from District Co-operative Bank, Bahraich, the name of the petitioner was not there as he was not working on the posts included in the centralized service. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that there is a provision for final absorption after screening in accordance with the qualifications and norms laid down by the Cadre Authority and Registrar and an employee can only be absorbed if he is found suitable. In paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the request made in Annexures-2 and 3 cannot be accepted as none of the persons referred therein were working on the posts included in the centralized service. In paragraph 12 it is stated that the order contained in Annexure-4 was passed on the representation of the petitioner without considering the entire facts. In paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Cadre Authority has power to decide all policy matters concerning the service, whereas the Administrative Committee has power to determine and modify the strength of service with the prior approval of the Registrar. By way of circular contained in Annexure-6 the designation has been changed without changing the conditions of service, and this change has been made after approval of the Registrar. The change of designation does not affect any employee. In paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner never worked on the post of Chief Accountant or any equivalent post. He was working as Senior Accountant in the pay scale of Rs. 300 to 750 whereas the pay scale of Chief Accountant was Rs. 350 to 850.
10. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the allegations in the writ petition have been reiterated. In paragraph 5 of the same it is alleged that the petitioner was allowed the post of Senior Accountant in pursuance of the award contained in Annexure-1 to the petition and he has been continuously working on the said post. There are many persons junior to the petitioner and they are working as Chief Accountant and are being considered for their absorption, but a discriminatory treatment is being given to the petitioner merely because he was designated as Senior Accountant. In paragraph 6 of the rejoinder-affidavit, it is stated that the respondents have got no jurisdiction or authority not to include the post of Senior Accountant in the centralized service and not to treat the same at par with Chief Accountant when the concerned bank specifically states that the Senior Accountant is equivalent to Chief Accountant. In paragraph 7 of the rejoinder-affidavit It is stated that the document contained as Annexure-4 to the writ petition was Issued by the Registrar and the respondents are under the obligation to act in accordance with this direction. In paragraph 8, it is stated that the petitioner cannot be treated as Branch Manager and he has to be considered for absorption. There is no question of holding any interview in his case.
11. In the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit it has been stated in paragraph 3 that there were different nomenclatures in different District Co-operative Banks.
12. Rule 2 (g) of the Co-operative Banks Centralized Service Rules, 1976, defines 'a member' to mean a person appointed to the service by absorption, promotion or direct appointment in accordance with these Rules. The word 'secretary' has been defined in Rule 2 fi) to mean the Chief Executive Officer, by whatever name called, of a bank. In different banks, there were different Chief Executive Officers having different nomenclatures. Similarly, there are different posts of equal nature carrying different nomenclatures. The highest post in the Bahraich District Co-operative Bank in the account section was Senior Accountant whereas in some banks it was known as Chief Accountant and elsewhere it was known as Accountant. While the post of Chief Accountant and some other posts were brought in to the fold of centralized service by amending Rule 3 in 1983, the newly added posts were not defined. However, the definition of Secretary included the Chief Executive Officer, by whatever name called, vide Rule 2 (i). Hence, in our opinion, the post of Senior Accountant in Bahraich District Co-operative Bank, which is a class-C bank has to be treated as equivalent to Chief Accountant as per norms prescribed under Rule 10 (b) as the pay scale of the petitioner is higher than that carried by the post of Chief Accountant of class-C bank. The post of Chief Accountant in class-C bank carries pay scale of Rs. 250-600 whereas the petitioner is in the pay scale of Rs. 300-750. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be treated as provisionally absorbed under Rule 9 (1) and thereafter he should be finally absorbed under the said Rule. Hence, in our opinion, the petitioner should not be called for interview for direct selection by treating him as Branch Manager from which post he was promoted as Senior Accountant as far back as 17.2.1978 under the award of the Industrial Tribunal.
13. Moreover, the bank, who is the employer of the petitioner, also has taken a stand that the petitioner is treated to be absorbed as Chief Accountant vide Annexures-2 and 3 of the writ petition. The Additional Registrar (Establishment) who is the Chairman of the Administrative Committee which is the appointing authority under Rule 7 also recommended for the same.
14. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as Chief Accountant and finally absorb the petitioner as member of Co-operative Centralized service and treat him as such in accordance with Rule 9. The impugned orders dated 6.6.1987 and 30.5.1987 are quashed. The petitioner shall be given consequential benefits. No order as to costs.