Temporary Appointment in Cooperative Bank Does Not Confer Service Rights; Court Orders State to Pay Rs. 1 Lakh for Delays
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, dismissed a writ petition filed by Uma Kant Tripathi, challenging the annulment of his temporary appointment as a Class IV employee in Bahraich District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Justice Garima Prashad, presiding over the case, ruled that a temporary appointment for a period not exceeding 89 days does not confer any right to continue in service, seek regularization, or claim salary and other service benefits beyond the stipulated tenure.
The case revolved around the petitioner's appointment as a "Sahyogi" in the Cooperative Bank, which was annulled by the Deputy Registrar under Section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The petitioner contested that his appointment was made by a competent authority and that the annulment was procedurally flawed due to the absence of a prior notice or hearing.
However, the court noted that the appointment orders dated September 7, 1993, and December 22, 1993, clearly indicated the temporary nature of the appointment, limited to a maximum of 89 days, without any extension or regularization documented. The court emphasized that even if no regularly selected candidate joined subsequently, this did not transform the temporary appointment into a permanent one.
Furthermore, the court exercised its discretion to deny issuing a writ of certiorari, which would have otherwise revived an appointment that had already lapsed. The court referenced the Supreme Court's stance in similar cases, highlighting that restoring an appointment void from inception due to procedural defects is unnecessary.
The interim order allowing the petitioner to work and receive a salary during the pendency of the writ was also considered. However, the court clarified that such interim relief does not create substantive service rights, especially when the petitioner did not perform any duties post-March 1994.
Despite dismissing the petition on merits, the court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the State authorities for their inordinate delay in filing counter affidavits and failing to inform the court of non-compliance with the interim order. The court criticized the three-decade delay in proceedings, which deprived the court of timely assistance and resolution.
The State has been directed to compensate the petitioner within six weeks as a measure of accountability for procedural lapses, underscoring the importance of adherence to judicial directions and timely procedural compliance.
Bottom Line :
Temporary appointment for 89 days in a Co-operative Bank does not confer any right to continue in service, regularisation, salary or retiral benefits after expiry of tenure; even if action under Section 128 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act suffered from procedural defect, writ of certiorari need not be issued where it would revive an appointment already exhausted by efflux of time. Interim order cannot create substantive service rights. However, State authorities may be saddled with costs for long delay and failure to apprise Court of non-compliance of interim order.
Statutory provision(s): U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, Section 128
Uma Kant Tripathi v. C/M Bahraich Coop Bank Ltd., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987504
