SRI G v. SHIVAJI

Petitionunder.Article226ollheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the 1"t respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.44 Agriculture and co-operation (coop-1 1) Department' dt' 17.12.2022 and the consequential orders issued by the respondents 2' 3' 4' in issuing operational guidelines for effecting transfers of employees' working in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies' registered under Telangana Co- operative Societies Act, as illegal, arbitrary and Violative of Article 14 and 16 of theConstitutionoflndia,apartoffromcontrarytotheprovisionsofSection,l.l5- D of Telangana Co-operative Societies Act and Rules made there under' Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G' V' SHIVAJI counsel for the Respondents No'1' ' ?i. oor,r,oNAl ADvocATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No'3: SRI ROHIT POGULA Counsel for the Respondent No'4: SRI S' VENKATESHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos'6 to 24:. - WRIT P ETITION NO: 1686 oF 2023 Between:

1. Gaddam Yadaiah, S/o. Sailu, aged 47 years' 2. Maadu Pratap Reddy, S/o' Hanmanth Reddy' aged 56 years' 3. K.Anil Kumar, S/o. Gantaiah, aged 43 years' 4. P.Vinay Kumar, S/0. Anjaiah, aged 55 years' 5. K.Raghunandhan, S/o. Yadaiah, aged 41 years' 6. M.Venkataiah, S/o. Gopaiah, aged 53 years' 7. A.Brahmam, S/o. Ratnya Nayak' aged 53 years' 8. P.Jangaiah, S/o. Lingaiah' aged 54 years' 4

9. Mahamad, Sio. Khaja, aged 52 years. 10.K.Jangaiah, S/o. Buddaiah. aged 46 years. 1 1 . G.Naveen Kumar, S/o. Chandraiah. aged 35 years. 12.G.Buchaiah, S/o. Jangaiah, aged 57 years. l3.M.Srinivas, S/o. Gopalah, aged 37 years. 14.T.Srikanth, S/o. Eshwaraiah, aged 34 years. 'l5.T.Venkatreddy, S/o. Krishnareddy, aged 48 years. 16.N.Vijender Reddy, S/o.Vekatreddy, aged 29 years. 17.G.Devender, S/o. Ramchandraiah, aged 40 years. lB.N.Padmakar Reddy, S/o. Gopal Reddy, aged 35 years. 19.P.Peddamma, S/o. Pochaiah, aged 46 years. 20.K.Shekar, S/o. Ramchandri, aged 37 years. 21 . R.Ravi, S/o. Ramulu. aged 32 years. 22.S.Muthyapreddv, S/o. Manlk Reddy, aged 57 years. (All are for the services, notices etc., Gaddam Yadaiah, S/o. Sailu, aged 47 years., R/o.H.No.3-25, Mekagua Kothur Mandal, Kothur, Nandigaon, Mahaboobnagar District-509228) ...'ET,T'ONERS The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Co-operative Department, Secretariat Buildings. Hyderabad. The Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. AND 1 2

3. The Telangana State Co-operative Bank, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Abids Hyderabad.

4. The District Co-operative Central Bank, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Court Road, 6-14415A, Mahaboobnagar District, Telangana-50900'l .

5. The District Co-operative Officer, Co-operation Department, Govemment of Telangana, Rangareddy District, Telangana.

6. The Mekagucla PACS, Rep. by its President, Nandigama Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana.

7. The Talakondapally PACS, Rep. by its President, Talakondapally Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana.

8. The Kothapeta PACS, Rep. by its President, Keshampet Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana.

9. The Shadnagar PACS, Rep. by its President, Faroopagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana. '10.The Chegur PACS, Rep. by its President, Nandigama Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana.

11.The Kondurg PACS, Rep. by its President, Kondurg Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana. 5

12.The Amangal PACS, Rep. by its President, Amahgal Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana.

13. The lVladgul PACS, Rep. by its President, Madgul Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana.

14.The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), Rep. by its Chief General Manager, Regional Office, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. Respondent No.14 is impleaded as per Court order dated 06-11-2024 vide l.A.No.1 oI 2024 in W.P.No.'1686 ot 2023. ...RES'ONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit flled therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.44 Agriculture and Co-operation (Coop-ll) Department, dt 17.12.2022 and the consequential orders lssued by the respondents 2,3,4, in issuing operational guidelines for effecting transfers of employees, working in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies, registered under Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, as illegal, arbitrary and Violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia, apart of from contrary to the provisions of Section 115-D of Telangana Co-operative Societies Act and Rules made there under. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. V. SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 2 & 5: THE ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI ROHIT POGULA Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI S. VENKATESHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 24: - WRIT PETITION NO: 6884 OF 2023 Between: '1 . M.Nagaraju, S/o.M.Kistaiah, aged 28 years, 2. Talla Raju, S/o. T.Narasimulu, aged 28 years 3. P.Mahesh, S/o. P.Laxmaiah, aged 32 years. I

4. Mohamed Abdul Kaleem, S/o. lr/la Aleem, aged 35 years' 5. Kande Ramesh, S/o. K.Tirupataiah, aged 60 years' 6. Kondamoni Shiva, S/o Manyamkonda' aged 25 years" 7. Madharamoni Suresh, S/o' M'Tirupataiah' aged 28 Years' B. Yadagiri Vijaya Kumar, S/o' Y'srinivasulu' aged 28 years 9. Narumandla Krushnaiah, S/o' N Ramulu' aged 25 years' l0.Ponnakanti Srisailam, S/o' P'Balaiah' aged 36 years' 11.A.Sudha Pavan Kumar, Sio' A Seshaiah' aged 37 years' 12'CheemarlaRaieswarReddy,s/o.Ch.JangiReddy,aged30years. ,l3.MannemoniRaghavendraSwamy,s/o.M.Balaswamy,aged35years 14.C.kavitha, W/o. Singireddy Linga Reddy' aged 36 years lS.Athinarapu Ashok Sagar, S/o A'Ambulaiah' aged 32 years' l6.Anthati Mallaiah Goud' S/o' A Narayana' aged 55 years' 17. Kotha Sekhar Reddy, S/o. K Venkat Reddy' aged 31 years' 18.Bolgam Shoba' D/o. B.Kondaiah, aged 22years' lg.Bommanamoni Chandraiah, Sio B'Narasaiah' aged 34 years' 20.Edula Ravi Teja Reddy, S/o E'Damodhar Reddy' aged 26 years' 21.Gunti Anjaneyulu, S/o. G.Venkataiah' aged 27 yeats ' 22.Ummanamoni Bhaskar, S/o U Tirupataiah' aged 27 years ' 23.B.Vamsi, S/o. B Mohan lal, aged 27 years' 24.Md.Moulana, S/o. Dashageer, aged 36 years' 25. V.Srinu, S/o. Satyanna, aged 34 years' 26. S.Raju, S/o. S.Parvathalu Goud' aged 31 years' 27. Nandipet Raiu, S/o. N.Ramulu' aged 28 years' 28. Mohd Khajapasha, S/o. Md'Dastagiri' aged 28 years ' 29.Gubba Ravi Kumar, S/o.Lingayya, aged 43 years' 30.Nandipeta Mallesh, S/o. N Ramulu' aged 35 years' 31 . Gorla Ravinandan, S/o. G Ramulu, aged 31 years' 32.Nama Naresh, S/o. Nama Ramachandrababu' aged 23 years' 33.Chetamoni Mahesh, S/o. Ch Arjunaiah, aged 29 years' 34. Dasari Khasim' S/o. Balaswamy, aged 25 years' 35. Kathe Mallaiah, S/o. K.Beeraiah, aged 51 years 36.Addula Kista Reddy, S/o. A'Bheem Reddy' aged 28 years' 37. Palamuri Rakesh, S/o. P'Tirupataiah' aged 25years' 38.Singaraju Shekar, S/o. S'Krishnaiah' aged 43 years' 39. Dasari Anjaneyulu Yadav, S/o D'Krishnaiah' aged 27 years 40.Avancha Deepthi' S/o. Wo Sudharshan' aged 32 years 41 . B.Sumithra, W/o. K.Shankar Reddy' aged 29 years' 42.Manne Swathi, C/o. Sudrashan Reddy' aged 35 years'

43. Avula Ganesh, S/o. Thirupathaiah, aged 32 years. 44. D.S.Krishna Kumar, S/o. D.S.Anjaneyulu, aged 36 years' -Medak (All are for the services, notices etc. M Nagaraju, S/o M'Kistaiah' ag^qd 28 VJ"r", iV"'.n.r.r". i-sz,-xohaipuka(M), KondaFak, Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 44 are dismissed as withdrawn -as-per court order irt"o 20.02.2024'vide l.A.No.2 ot 2023 in w.P.No.6884 ot'o3lrar,r,o*a*, Districts02372) AND 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep b.y its . Principal Secretary' Co-operative Department, Secretari-at Buildings, Hyderabad'

2.TheCommissionerforCo-operationandRegistrarofCo.operativeSocieties, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad'

3. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. (NABARD)' Rep' - ;iltr Cti;it"*irr vrng;r, Resional office, RTC "X" Roads, Hvderabad' 4. The Telanqana State Co-operative Bank, Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director. Abids, Hvderabad. Cdrrt n,iiO, A4qatse, Mahabubnagar District, Telangana-509001 ' - 5.TheDistrictCo.operativeCentralBank,Repby.itsChiefExecutiveofficer, 6. The District Co-operative Officer, C-o-operation Department' Government of Telangana, Maha6ubnagar District' Telangana' l

7. The Uooununthala PACS, Rep' by its President, Uppununthala Mandal' Nagar(uinool District, Telangana. B. The Telkapally PACS, Rep. by its President, Telkapally Mandal' Nagarkurnool District, Telangana.

9. The Gorita PACS, Rep. by its President, Thimmajipet Mandal' Nagarkurnool District, Telangana. 1o.The Bijinapally PACS, Rep. by its President, Bijinapally Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana. '1 1 . The Tadoor PACS, Rep. by its President, Tadoor Mandal' Nagarkurnool District, Telangana.

12.The GopalPet PACS, ReP District, Telangana. by its President, Gopalpet Mandal, Vanaparthi l3.TheNaqarkurnoolPACs,Rep.byitsPresident,NagarkurnoolMandal' Nagarkuinool District, Telangana

14.The Teelair PACS, Rep. by its President' Marikal Mandal' Narayanapet District, Telangana. l5.TheKondaBakPACS,Rep.byitsPresident'Kondapak(V)and(M)'Siddipet District, Telangana.

16.The Kosgi PACS, Rep. by its President, Kosgi Mandal, Narayanapet District' ..-RESP.NDENTS Telangana I Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the 1't respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.44 Agriculture and Co-operation (Coop-ll) Department' dt 17 12'2022 and the consequential orders issued by the respondents 2' 4' and 5' in issuing operational guidelines for effecting transfers of employees' working in Primary AgriculturalCo.operativeSocieties,registeredunderTelanganaCo.operative societies Act, as illegal, arbitiary and Violative of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of lndia, apart of from contrary to the provisions of section '1 15-D of Telangana Co-operative Societies Act and Rules made there under' Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G. V. SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 2 & 5: THE ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SMT. V' UMA DEVI, S'C' FOR NABARD Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRt ROHIT POGULA Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: SRI N. VASUDEVA REDDY, S.C. FOR THE DISTRICT CO.OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to 16: - WRIT PETITION NO:43 09 0F 2023 I Between:

1. Combined Mahabubnagar District PACS, Chairman Forum. Rep. by^ its FreiiOent P.MadnusuJlian Redav Slo eaOma R-eddy' |.qg ?9 Years' Occ' i+;;&;i, PACS leeja, leeja Man6al, Jogulamba Gadwal District' NleiigiuOa, Nandigam Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict' Shadnag"t, Shadnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'

2. K.Manjula Reddy, S/o.Sudheer8eddy, Age 56 Years, Occ President' PACS - 3. B.Bakkanna Yadav, S/o.Ramaiah, Age 6p. Y-ears, Occ President' PACS -' 4. Jakka Raghunandan Reddy, S/o. Jambul .Reddy, AS9^.59. years' Occ' ' 5. M.Vishnuvarclhan Reddy, S/o Ramakrishna Reddy' Age' 65 years' Occ' - Corita, Tim-niajipet mandal, Nagarkurnool District' i;;d;i,l;"1, FACS pangat' pansal mandal, Wanaprthv District' Fidiio"ni, -iAcs Upprnritt ata, U'ppunutha'ia mandal, Nagarkurnool District - 6.S.BhoopalRao,S/o.RaghupathiF?9'nS,"52years,.OccPresident'PACS 7. D.Bhaskar Reddy, S/o.Malla Reddy, Age 52 Years, Occ President, PACS ' : iettapatty, Telkairally Mandal, Nagarkurnool District' 9

8. MD.Samad Pasha, S/o,Pedda Babu, Age 49 Years, Occ. President, PACS Tadoor, Tadoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

9. T.Laxmikanth Reddy, S/o.Ram Reddy, Age 53 Years, Occ. President, PACS Narva, Narva Mandal, Narayanapet District.

10.P.Uma Maheshwar Reddy, S/o.Narayan Reddy, Age 62 Years, Occ. President, PACS Muchinthala, Chinna Chinthakunta Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

11.U.Gajendar Reddy, S/o.Ram Reddy, Age 48 Years, Occ. President, PACS Kalugotla, Alampur Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. l2.T.Janardhan Reddy, S/o.Ram Reddy, Age 45 Years, Occ. President, PACS Kalwakurthy, Kalwakurthy Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. '13. G.Rajendar Goud, S/o.Yamunappa Goud,,Age 52 Years, Occ. President, PACS Telair, Marikal Mandal, Narayanapet District.

14.G.Kodanda Ram Reddy, S/o.Veera Raghava Reddy, Age 52 Years, Occ. President, PACS Pebbair, Pebbair Mandal, Wanaparthy District. '15.L. Raghu, S/o.Ramaswamy, Age 49 Years, Occ. President, PACS Gopalpet, Gopalpet Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

16. J.Narsaiah Yadav, S/o.Singotam, Age 55 Years, Occ. President, PACS Kondanagula, Balmoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

17. B.Narsimha Reddy, S/o.Narayan Reddy, Age 61 Years, Occ. President, PACS Koppunoor, Veepanagandal Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

18. P.Krishnaiah, S/o.Kistaiah, Age 64 Years, Occ. President, PACS Kollapur' Kollapur Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

19.S.Thimma Reddy, S/o.Sangava Reddy, Age 57 Years, Occ. President, PACS Maldakal, Maldakal Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. 2O.P.V. Raghava Reddy, S/o.Shekar Reddy, 4S". 49 Years, Occ. President' PACS Kyathur, Alampur Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. 21 .S.Mohan Reddy, S/o.Busi Reddy, Age 61 Y-ears' Occ. President, PACS Alampur, Alampur Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

22. K.Venkateshwarlu, S/o.Thippanna, Age 56 Years, Occ. President, PACS Gattu, Gattu Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

23.J.Hanmanth Reddy, Sio.Venkat Reddy, Age 46 Years, Occ. President, PACS Ambatipally, Lingal Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

24.K.Rajendar Goud, S/o.Sayanna Goud, Age 55 Years,.Occ. President, PACS Kothapet, Peddakothapallir Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

25.K.Venkat Reddy, S/o. Thippa Reddy, Age.54 years, Occ. President, PACS' Maganoor, Maganoor mandal, Narayanpet District.

26.B.Srinivas Reddy, Sio. Narayan Reddy, Age.62 yeq1s, Occ. President, PACS Nagarkurnool, Nagarkumool mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

27.Bal Reddy, S/o. Thammi Reddy, !ge. lq years, Occ. President, PACS Utkoor, Utkoor mandal, Narayanpet District.

28.K.Vasudeva Reddy, S/o. Taka Reddy, A99.4-6 years, Occ. President, PACS Pamapuram, Kothikota mandal, Wanaparthy District.

29.Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Hanmanth Re{d1 Ag9. 45 years, Occ. President, PACS Garlapahad, Mahabubnagar mandal, Mahaboobnagar District' 3O.K.Ashok Reddy, S/o, Balakrishna BqO9V, Age. 48 years, Occ. President, PACS Boothpui, Boothpur mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 31 . N.Balraju Goud, S/o. Ramchandraiah , Age. 44 years, Occ. President, PACS Bijinapally,Bijinapallymandal,NagarkurnoolDistrict. ...PETiT|ONERS AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal. Secretary, Agriculture Cooperation (Coop-ll) Department, Telangana State, Hyderabad The commissioner for cooperation, and Registrar of cooperative Societies, Telangana State, Hyderabad. 2 ...RES'ONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that a) G.O.Ms.No.44 (Agriculture & Cooperation (Coop-ll) Department, dt' ,17112t2O22 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 and 16 0f the constitution of lndia and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I ._--3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI w.P.NOS.428 16a5 648+ & 4309 0F 2023 COMMON ORDER W.P,Nos.428 , 1686 & 6884 of 2023: In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are employees working in various Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies (PACS) located the Disrricts ol Mahaboobnagar, Ranga Reddy, Nagarkurnool, Siddipet and Narayanpet. The petitioners are working as Chief Executive Officers, Staff Assistance and Clerks, etc. The Government of Telangana has issued G.O.Ms.No.44, Agriculture and Co-operation (Coop_lI) Department, dated 17.12.2O22 issuing guidelines in the name of uniform Human Resource (HR) policy for primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies (PACS) employees, whereunder the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies (pACS) have been categorized into A, B, C and D Categories basing on the business level of the respective societies and further mentioned e permitted staff structure in respect of the pACS. The said G.O., lurther imposed restrictions over the powers of pACS in appointment of staff and payment of salaries etc,, and separate committees called State Level Committee (SLC) and District Level Committee (DLC) were formed for the said purpose. The I.t \ I I 2 above G.O., is thus challenged on the ground that it vitiates the provisions of Section 1 15(D) of Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, the petirioners have filed the present writ petitions claiming that G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 12.12.2022 is issued in violation of .powers vested under Section 131 of Cooperative Societies Act. In addition to the averments made in the respective writ petitions, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has advanced to the following written arguments: (il It is submitted that as per Section 1 1S-D of Telangana Co-operatiue Sociefies Act, the pimary Agriculture Co_ operatiue Societg are hauing autonomous status, subject to anA guidelines issued by the NABARD/ RBI. It is submitted that after enactment o-f aboue prouision 1 1 5-C and 1 1 S D, bg ruag of amendment. uide Act No.16/2O07, as atl the pimary Agriculture Co-operatiue Societg taere under financial bankntptcA, the Gouentment of India announced a packoge for reuiual of Co- operatiue Credit sttuchtre, aiming to bing the Co-operatiues to an acceptable leuel of health through financial re-structuing. (iil lt is submitted thot as part of reuiual packoge, MOtl exeatted by tlle state for autonomg in Jinancial and administratiue matters especiallg staffing, recruitment of staff in the societg. Further as per MOU entered betuteen Gouernment of 3 India and NABARD, the Registrar of Co_operatiue Societies mag issue guidetines for the benefit of primary Agricttlture Co_ operatiue Societg, but there need. not be any d_irections from the State Gouemment and actual staffing and- compensation may be decided bg the respectiue cooperatiues, on the basis of capacitg to pag. While that being the binding terms of understand_ing. i.e. MOU, the State Gouernment issued. impugned. G.O.Ms.No.44 Agiculture and Cooperation Department, dated 17_j2_2O22, usurping the potuers and_ autonomous sfatus of primary Agianlture Co-operatiue Society, as potDers to recruitment of staff in Primary Agicurture co-operatiue societg and" other seruice conditions are nou) completelg put in hands oJ- State Leuel Committees and District l_euel Committees. (iii) It is further submitted that Section 115(D) completelg giues autonomous status to primary Agriculture Co_operatiue Society, howeuer subject to guidelines issued bg RBI/ NABARD. Hotleuer, in the tnstant case there are no such guidelines issued. bU RBI/ NABARD, but the impugned G.O. hcrs been issued, refentng to a letter of correspondence ad"d.ressed. by the NABARD uide Ref No.NB.HO.IDD.Coop/ j42O/V/ j1(A)/ 20tB_ jg, dated. 2Z_ o2-2o19. Further in para (2) of impugned G.o., it h.,s been stated that the NABARD, through Letter dated 27-O2_2O j 9, under ) ) I 4 1 I ref.No.(2) in the G.O., "has communicated operational guidelines on HR policg for Pimary Agiculture Co-operatiue Societg, recommended bg the National Federation of State Co-operatiue Banks Committee. It is submitted that the Gouernment is refering to a mere conespondence letter, as if it i.s a communication of o p er ationol guideline s. (iu) It zs submitted that the IVAFSCO is an Associatiort/ Federation of State Co-operatiue Banks, and, the same has nothing to do with the pouters and functions confened upon Primctry Agrianlture Co-operatiue Society. Therefore the recommendations made by such piuate fonLm cannot be constnted, as guid-elines bsued under Section 115-D of Telangana Co-operatiue Societies Act. Therefore the impugned G.O. itself is u.tithout jurisdiction and contrary to laut, therefore liable to be set aside. (u) [t is submitted that the respondents in their counter affidauit hat-rc been asserting that before issuance o-f impugned G.O., the representatiues of employees u)ere prouid_ed ttith oppottunitA of hearing, uthich is incorrect, as no emplogees utorking in the societg uere issued uith notices, before issuance of the impugned G.O. Howeuer, some of the emplogees, stAling themselues as union representatiues, uho are supporters and. 5 close associates of ruling patlA at the time of issuance of the G.O., seemed to haue ascibed. the terms of impugne,i G.O., which is not binding on tLrc petitioners as u.tell as other emplogees u,rc.rking in Primary Agricutture Co_operatiue Societg. (uil It is submitted. that the respond.ents are trying to justifu their action, onlg on the ground that, the presid-ent of District Co-operatiue Central Bank (DCCB) is tLLe Chairman of Distict Leuel Committee, utho happens to be one oJ- the president of Primary Agrianltural Co-operatiue Cred.it Societies (pACS), similarlg the Chainnan of Telangana State Co-operatiue Ba'nk (ISCOB), happens to be presid_ent of particular primary Agicultural Co-operatiue Credit Societies (pACS) inuolued- in disczission. It is submitted. that, this uould. not bg itself utould amount to prouiding opportunitg to the primary Agicttltural Co_ Ooperotiue Credit Societies (pimary Agiculture Co_Operatiue Societg). throughout the State. (rii) It is submitted that the impugned. G.O., contents therein show no inuoluement of General Bod.g of the respectiue Primary Agiculfure co-operatiue societg. Fttrther *Le ostensible representations of all the societies through the Chairman of DCCB and Chairrnan of TSCOB, is nothing but otiose, at no point of time, the said Choinnan of TSCOB, Chairman of all DCCB,S, haue I 6 I .l euer infonned about the impugned HR poticy to the General Bod-g members of the primary Agicalture Co-Operatiue Societg, throughout the State. (uiii) It is submitted that the whole point to be consid_ered is uthether all Managing Committees throughout the State, u.sere informed qbout the proposed. gaidelines or whether the reol pay masters fi.e.) members of tLLe General Bod_g of all pimary Agiculture Co-Operatiue Societg, are brought to the notice of impugned HR Poticg, is the zssue to be consid.ered. Hotaeuer in the instant case, no Sociefies uere allouted_ to communicate their uieus on tmpugned policy. On the other hand., clear oppressiue method has been chosen. bg the Respondents, to get concurrence; for their proposed. guidelines, bg inmrporating it paral S of impugned G.O. that as follouts: "[t sltall be mandatory for all tlte primary Agianlture Co_ operatiue society to abide bg the Mou and. also the d_ecisions of ttte DLEC and SLEC. Non_Compliance _ of tlese orders shall be, treated as negrigence in performance of duties in tenns of section 34(1) (b) (i) of the Telangana co_operatiue Act, i964, bg the Emplogees ancl managements of pimary Agicalture Co_operatiue Societg ". (ix) It is submitted. that the aboue u.tould shota that under senbus thrent of supersession of the Managing Committees of 7 Pimary Agiantture Co-operatiue Society haue been insisted to sign on the MOtl's and euen tte longuage imposed in MoU's would clearlg shows arbitrariness. A recent Communication addressed by the Dtstict Co-operatiue oJficer to the Societies dated: 27-02-2023, is being filed, to show hotu the societies are being threatened representing character of a Bitish charter, tuhich cannot be allou.ted irt Democracg. Therefore, the Learned Senior Counsel prayed this Court to allow the Writ Petitions and set aside the G.O.Ms.No.44, Agriculture and Cooperation Dcpartment, dated 17 -12-2022.

2. ln W.P.No.4309 of 2023, this writ petition has been filed by the Presidents of various societies in the Jogulamba Gadwal, Ranga Reddy, Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar, Wanaparthy, Narayanpet Districts, challenging the G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 17.12.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and against the very spirit of the cooperative movement' In addition to the tegal arguments advanced in the above paragraphs, it is furthe r submitted that the ultimate authority of the society is the general body of the society in terms of Section 30 of the Cooperative Societies Act and Section 31 gives power to the general body to constitute the management committee in ( t I 8 . accordance with its byelaws and Section 116(c) of the Act gives the powers to societies to lx the staffing pattern, qualification, pay scale, and other allowances for the employees with the prior approval or- Registrar of cooperative societies subject to the conditions that the expenditure towards pay and allowance of the employees shal not exceed 2o/o of the working capital or 3O"/o of the gross profit in terms of actual in a year whichever is less. It is further submitted that Government of India has declared a cooperative credit revival package to bring the cooperative societies to an acceptable level of health through financial re:itructuring along with legal and institutional reforms and the letrer of NABARD dated 28.01.2009 addressed to the Commissioner for Cooperation, Registrar of Cooperative Societies specifically refers to Clause 9.2(lV) of the MOU executed b5, the Government of India, State Governments and NABARD rvhich reads that ,,prouid.ing autonomy to CCS in att financial and. internal administrattue matters especiallg in the personnel policy, staffing, recruitment, posting and. compensation to staff.

3. According to the learned senior counsel, NABARD may issue only guidelines for establishment expenditure vis_a_ t \ I 9 visa business and viabilities, suggestions of staff size, qualifications, etc., but the actual staffing and composition has to be decided by the respective cooperatives on the basis of their capacity to pay.

4. Learned Senior Counsel also refers to the Section 115(D)(2) to submit that there is autonomy to the cooperative credit societies in all financial and internal administrative matters su bject to the guidelines of RBI (NABARD) in certain areas and some of the cooperative societies have adopted the scales of pay and other aliowances etc., given in G.O.Ms.No. 151, dated, 22.06.2O09 and some of the cooperative societies which have capacity to pay more than what have been suggested in G.O.Ms.No. l5l, dated 22.06.2009, have been making payment of salaries at much higher rate as well.

5. Ir is submirted that G.OMs.No.44, dated 12.12.2022 refers to operational guidelines on HR policy for pACS recommended by the National Federation of State Cooperative Banks (NAFSCOB) and the said guidelines were communicated by NABARD to rhe Srate by a letter d,ated 27.02.2019, requiring the PACS in the States to pass a resolution in their management committee authorizing the president and Secretary, pACS to ( hh- / 1() .J sign the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU) annexed thereto and through the said notifrcation directions were given to the RCS for implementation of the uniform human resource policy to the PACS employees. therefore, the

6. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the G.O.Ms.No.44 scuttles, abrogates and takes awal' the autonomy ol the pACS which \\,rzl s zealously protected by the MoU entered by the state during 20og, which has neither been terminated nor lapsed and G.O.Ms.No.44 is in violation of the earlier MO[J. It is submitted that any interference with the autonomy of the pACS, runs contrary to the cooperative movement and the purpose for which cooperative institutions came into bring under Section 3O of the Act, and that the ultimate authority of a society vests in the general body of the society subject to the byelaws and the provlslons of the Act and the consequences of mal administration, inefflrcient administration are taken care of by various provisions of the Act of 1964 such as Sections 32, 34, 50, 51, 52 and other sections in Chapter 7 of the Act. It is submitted I hat the State Government is not vested with any power to issue notification in the present lorm under Section ) \ \ I 11 131(1) of the Act, whereunder the State Government can issue only such orders or directions which are in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in the interest of cooperative movement in the State, but does not have unlimited power to issue directions to the registrar compelling him to interfere in the day to day affairs of the societies. Thus, challenging the power of the Government to issue G.O.Ms.No.44, dated

17.12.2022, the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Subsequent to the filing of these writ petitions, .the petitioners have filed a memo enclosing therewith the copy of the letter issued by the NABARD i.e., respondent No.3 in W.P.No.6884 of 2023, dated O4.O7.2011, clarifying that the advise about the human resource policy formulated by NABARD is only suggestive and indicative in nature and it is up to the concerned bank to take a decision in this regard with necessary modihcations to suit bank's requirements. Further vide Memo d,ated 24 .06.2024 , the petitioners have enclosed therewith a copy o[ the circular dated 13.04.2023, whereunder there was a direction to stop finance to PACS by DCCB, if the PACS has not entered into MOU and has not adopted the G.O.Ms.No.44, dated

17.1,2.2022. The copy of the letter dated 06.01.2023 was issued \ I 12 to the Presidents of PACS to adopt the uniform human resource policy and the letter dated 14.06.2 O23 for implementation of the uniform human resource for pACS and instructions for stopping of the refinance to PACS, who have not adopted the G.O.Ms.No.44, dated tZ .12.2022 and lurther a copy ol the lerter d,ated 27.O2.2023 for implementation of directions issued under G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 12.12.2022 has been issued. Both the memos have been considered and the documents have taken on record.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 has relied upon the averments in the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the Government has issued G.O-Ms.No.44, dated 17.12.2022 on uniform human resource policy to the PACS employees in the Telangana State and was communicated to the DCOs in the State for taking further necessary action in the matter. It is stated that the said G.O., has been issued by the respondent No. 1 on the basis of recommendations of the NABARD strictly in conformity with Section I I 5-D(2) of TCS Act, 1964 and that the said recommendations were issued on the basis of the report of the seven mentber committee of National Federation of State 1 \ I I I I 13 Cooperative Banks (NAPSCOB), appointed by high level committee headed by the Chief Secretary to monitor the health of the Cooperative Credit Societies in the country. In response to the specihc grievances of the petitioners in the writ petitions, it is admitted that special byelaws/ service byelaws framed by the respondent No.2 wouid govern the service conditions of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.428, 1686 and 6884 of 2023 and that the impugned G.O., clearly specifies that the respondent No.2 shall separately issue the uniform service regulation for adaptation by the PACS.

9. As regards the contentions that the PACS's autonomy under Section 115(D) has been interfered with, it is stated that said autonomy is subject to the guidelines of NABARD issued from time to time and that G.O.Ms'No.44, dated 17.12.2022 is issued on the recommendations of the NABARD and is only in compliance of Section 115(D)(2) of the Act. In respect of Section 115(D)(3Xb), it is stated that there shall be no Government nominees being included in the managing committee of PACS and therefore, there is no violation of the said provision. As regards the transfer policy sought to be introduced in the uniform human resource policy, it is stated I ) L4 I .l that it is meant to circulate the human resources both in horizontal and in vertical plane in the 3-tier cooperative credit structure and the said policy is based on the cardineil principle of "Right person in the Right job at the Right place" and it is meant to strengthen the human resource base ol the 3-tier cooperative structure. It is submitted that the PACS are well represented in the District Level and State Level Committees which are constituted under the impugned G.O.Ms-No.44, dated

17.12.2022. It is stated that the President of the DCCB is the Chairman of the District Level Committee, who is originally President of a PACS and similarly the State Level Committee is headed by the Chairman of the Telangana State Cooperative Apex Bank. who also happens to be from the Presidernts of PACS and therefore, there is involvement of the PACS in the constitution of the State and District Level Committees. It is stated that G.O.Ms.No.44 has been issued under Section 131 of the Cooperative Societies Act and hence is valid.

10. As regards the petitioners contentions that the pay scales proposed under the uniform human resource policy are to their disadvantage, it is submitted that such an argument is only their apprehension and there is no ground to believe that 15 the petitioners will be put to loss and that no powers of PACS are taken away as al1 orders affecting the appointment' transfer' promotion, sanction of increment of the employees of PACS are to be issued by the President/ Managing Committee of the PACS on1y. It is stated that higher education qualification is prescribed for different cadres of the PACS keeping in view the new business activity being taken up by the PACS and also keeping in view the computerized environment in which the PACS are functioning now and that there is no change in the designation of the petitioners herein' 1 1. In reply to the counter filed by the respondents No' 1 ard 2, the petitioners have filed a reply affidavit stating that the letter of NABARD dated 27.O2.2O19 is only a recommendation by the National Federation of State Cooperative Banks Committee, which is neither a registered body nor a recognized legal entity and also that it is only an internal communication between NABARD and respondent No'2 and therefore' it has no legal recognition and cannot be termed as guidelines issued within the meaning of Section 1 15-D(2) of Telangana State Cooperative Societies Act. It is further submitted that Section 1 15(D) specifically contemplates issuance of guidelines either by I 16 l ..1 the RBI or NABARD and it never speaks about the recommendations and therefore, as there are no guidelines issued by the RBI or NABARD, the contents of the letter dated

27.02.2019 cannot be considered as guidelines and that it is only a recommendation of the committee. In response to the counter affidavit that the State and District Level Committees consist of rnember of PACS, it is stated that their inclusion itself would not amount to providing opportunit5r to the PACS whose staff is being transferred. According to the learned senior counsel that the said G.O., is issued in utter violation of the provisions ol the Act and in violation of principals of natural justice and hence has to be set aside.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.428 of 2023 i.e-, The Telangana State Cooperative Bank, reiterated the stand taken by the respondents No.1 and 2 ar,d in addition to the above arguments, stated that up to 27.O2.2O23 in compliance rvith G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 17.12.2022,769 PACS out of total 826 PACS affiliated to 9 DCCBs in the State have so far resolved to implement for the said uniform human resource policy for PACS employees. It is admitted that the common cadre of employees I j i 1 \ I L7 in PACS, was abolished by insertion of Section 1 16(AA) and thereafter, an amendment vide Act No' 16 of 2O07 was made to the effect that the society shall have autonomy under Section 115(D) of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act' subject to the guidelines of RBI/NABARD in the matters of personnel policy' staffing, recruitment, posting, and compensation to the staff and thereafter the process of affecting transfers has become part of the human resource policy recommended by NABARD for implementation by the State Governments and that the PACS have to abide by the uniform human resource policy recommended by NABARD' Along with counter affidavit is annexed the copy of the letter dated 27 'O2 '20 19 issued by NABARD on the basis of which, the impugned G'O'Ms'No'44' d,ated 17 .12.2022 bas been issued'

13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 in W.P.No.428 ol 2023 i.e., DCCB, Mahabubnagar' also relied on the averments in the counter affidavit hled by respondent No.4, reiterating the stand taken by the respondents No.1 to 3. Similar counter affidavits have been hled in other writ petitions as well. / 18 \

74. In W.P.No.43O9 of 2023, a counter alfidavit has been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 raising similar contentions

15. There was no interim order passed by this Court suspending the operation of G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 17.12.2022. This Court had required the response of NABARD (which is the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.6884 of 20231 on this issue and in the counter alfidavit filed by NABARD, it is stated that the NABARD has no control directly or indirectly on pACS and that the Government of Telangana (Cooperative Department) .is the sole authority for issuing directives/ instructions to pACS and further stated that NABARD has only communicated the committee report of human resources policy for pACS recommended by the committee set up by the National Federation of State Cooperative Banks (NAFSCOB) and that NABARD had requested the Registrar of Cooperative Societies of all the Stzrtes to consider the recommendations of the policy with suitable modifications as per their requirements for adoption in PACS in their respective States. It is further stated 1 that NABARD is not an Apex Bank and has no regulatory or ) supervisory control directly or indirectly on the affairs of the / 19 PACS and that the NABARD had requested the Registrar of Cooperative Societies of all States to consider the recommendations of the policy with suitable modifications as per their requirements for adaptation by PACS in respective States and it is further stated that NABARD is only a pro-forma party and that no relief is sought against NABARD in these writ petitions.

16. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the basic and first and foremost ground of challenge to G.O.Ms.No.44, dated \7.12.2022 is that it is in vioiation of Section 1i5(D) of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act and further that it is in violation of principals of natural justice as mandated under Section 131 of the Cooperative. Societies Act. The stand of the Government has now ail along been that it is on the directions of the NABARD under Section 1f 5(D) of the Act, 1964 and that G.O.Ms.No.44 has been issued under Section 131 of Telangana Cooperative Societies Act and it has to be mandatorily followed.

17. This Court finds that (i) Section 115(C)(a) defines a "Co-operative Credit Society" to mean the State Co-operative Bank, the District Co-operative Central Bank (DCCB) and that_. / ! 20 the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society (PACS), which includes Farmers Service Co-operative Society (FSCS), Co-operatir,e Rural Bank (CRB), Large Sized Co-operative Society (LSCS) or any other Co-operative Credit Society primarily dealing with agricultural credit at primary level included under the Revival Package and other similar relief measures offered by the Government of India from time to time. (ii) that Section 1 i 5(D) prescribes special provisions applicable to Cooperative Credit Societies and Sub-Section (2) thereof provides that the Co-operative Credit Society shail have autonomy in all financial and internal administrative matters, subject to the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India/ National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development in the areas of:- (i)"." (ii) ".. (iii) ..- (iv) Personnel policy, staffing, recruitment, posting, and compensation to staff; (v) Internal control systems, appointment of auditors and compensation for the audit- (iii) that Sub-Section (3)(b) provides that there shall be only Government nominee on the managing committee of the State \ 2t Co-operative Bank/District Co-operative Central Bank as long as the equity of Government continues and there shall be no Government nominee in the managing committee of a primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society. (iu) Section 116(A)(A) was omitted vide G.O.Ms.No.53, dared

20.O5.2O16 abolishing the centralized services for certain categories of employees. (v) Section 116(C) provides for staffing pattern of societies and that the socieg shall have power to fix the staffing pattern, qualifications, pay scales and other allowances for its employees with the prior approval of the Registrar ol Cooperative Societies subject to the condition that expenditure towards pay and allowances of the employees shall not exceed two percent of the working capital or thirty percent of the gross profit, in terms of actuals in a year whichever is less. (vi) Section 13 1 gives power to rhe Government to give directions generally or in any particular matter in accordance with the provisions of this Act and in the interest of co-operative movement in the State.

18. In view of the above provisions of the Act, it is clear that the Cooperative Societies in the State of Andhra pradesh / 1 I I .l \ 22 and as adopted by the State of Telangana has autonomy in respect of its staffing pattern subject to the guidelines of the RBI/NABARD. The stand of the respondents has been that it is on the directions of NABARD that uniform human resource policy has been issued under the rmpugnetl G.O.Ms.No.44. However, in the counter filed by the NABARD in W.p.No.6gB4 of 2023 it is stated that they are not guidelines, but are only recommendations of the seven member committee of the NAFSCOB, r.r,hich has been forwarded for adoption sub-iect to the suitable modilications by the PACS as per their requirements for adoption in their respective states. Therefore, it is clear that these are not the directions of NABARD under Section I 15D of the Act, and therefore, they are not mandatorily to be folloq,ed. The power of the Government to issue directions under Section I3i of the Cooperative Societies Act is not in these writ petitions. However, such a direction arbitrary, but has to be in accordance with the of the Act and further, it also requires that the person likel.y to be aflected by such order, has to be given an opportunity or making his representation. In this case rmpugned G.O.Ms.No.44, there is change in the staffing pattern ..O there is a likelihood of the service conditions of the cannot be challengecl provisions I I 23 employees being affected as the payment of salaries is dependent on their linancial health' Therefore' before issuance of the G.O., even if the directions of G'O'Ms'No'44 are presumed to have been issued under Section 131 of the Telangana Cooperative Socielies Act, the affected parties have not been given sufhcient opportunity of making their submissions' In view thereof, the impugned G'O'Ms'No'44 is liable to be set

19. However, in the counter hled by the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.42B of 2023, it is stated that out of total 826 PACS,769 PACS have already adopted the said G'O'' and that the balance of the PACS have to take a decision' this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to call for the objections of the parties who have not yet joined or who still have grievances with regard to their service conditions and thereafter take a decision on the same' It is made clear that the change in the cadre or the transfer of the employees shall not have the affect of altering or modifying their service conditions to the detriment of their earlier service conditions' The employees so transferred shalt have the very same service conditions, if the modilied service conditions are not favourable \ 24 to them and if the modified service conditions are found to be favourable, then such modified service conditions shall be applied to them

20. With these directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

21. Miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. SD/.S. MAI-LIKARJUNA RAO 6r.ASSIS-TANT REGISTRAR To MP BS //TRUE COPY' \ I \i Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. Govemment cf Telangana, Hyderabad. S,ECTION OFFICER '1. The Principal.. Secretary, Co-operative oepartUent, State of Telangana, 2. The commissioner for co-operation and Registrar of co-operative societies, 3. The District Co-operative Officer, Room No.212. Government inteorated _ Buildings Complex, Main Road, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana, 50g2d'9. 4. The Chief General Manager, National Bank for AgricJlture and Rural _ Developmenl^(NABARD), Regional Office, RTC X Roads] Hyderabad. 5. The District_Co-operative Officer, Co-operation Department, Government of - Telangana, Rangareddy District, Telangana 6. The Chief Executive Officer, District Co-operative Centrat Bank, Cou( Road, - 6-14415A, Mahabubnagar District, Telangana-S09O01 3. The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Cooperation (Coop-ll) Department, State oI I etangana, telangana State, Hyderabad 7. One CC to SRI c V. SH|VAJ|, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Tvrc CCs to the Advocate General, High-Court ior the State of Telangana at 9. One CC to SRI ROHIT POGULA, Advocate [OPUC] 10.One CC to SRI S. VENKAT_ESHWAR REDDY, Adv6cate tOpUCI 11.One CC to SMT V. UMA DEV|, S.C. for NABARD tOpUCl 12.One CC to SRI N. VASUDEVA REDDY, S.C. for the District Co-Operative Hyderabad. [OUT] Central Bank IOPUC]

13.One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO MAD|RAJU, Advocate tOpUCl 14.Twq CD Copies {Vr - \F- \ t2 HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 ,/ A IrlE S Dq t:' l-(r f; 12 lutt ?M I' 1- t! cA PAtcHEg COMMON ORDER W.P. Nos. 428,1686, 6884 & 4309 OF 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS