Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2004

The petitioner is the employee of the 4th respondent Society. His services were terminated by the Society on the ground that its financial condition is bad and that the said appointment of the petitioner was made contrary to Act 2 of A.P. (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (for short ‘Act 2 of 1994). Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the services of the petitioner was terminated after following due procedure prescribed in law. It is not in dispute that the employee of the Society is entitled to continue if he is appointed in the sanctioned post in respect of the staffing pattern fixed by the society as approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, subject to the condition that the expenditure of pay and allowances shall not exceed 2% of the working capital or 30% of the gross profit in terms of actuals in a year, whichever is less. It is also open for each Society to revise the staffing pattern and pay & allowances for fulfilling the said conditions of Section 116 (c) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). Merely because some of these employees have been appointed contrary to Act 2 of 1994, it cannot constitute a ground to remove their services as long as their appointment is in compliance of Section 116 (c) (1) of the Act. If it is a simple removal by the Society in compliance of Section 116 (c) (1) of the Act, this court would not have entertained the writ petition filed by its employee but the action of the societies is pursuant to the directions of the higher authorities removing their employees, whose appointment was made contrary to Act 2 of