SATPAL GUPTA AND OTHERS v. HARYANA STATE CO OPE...

Inspector with all consequential benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioners were appointed as Field Inspectors during the year 1975 to 1982. Their posts were known as Inspector in Food Supplies Department, Haryana and the duties and responsibilities of Field Inspector (Junior) in the respondent- Federation and Inspector in Food Supplies Department are same. Prior to 01.04.1979, Field Inspectors (Junior) in the Federation-respondent No.1 and Inspectors in Food Supply Department was getting the same pay scale i.e. Rs.140-300/-. The pay scale of the Inspectors, Food Supplies Department came to be revised from time to time. While revising the pay scale of the petitioners, it was not brought at par with Inspectors of the Food Supplies Department which created anomalies in the pay scale of both sets of employees performing identical duties. The Board of Directors of respondent No.1-Federation considered the issue in detail in its 224^thmeeting held on 20.01.1997 and passed a resolution revising the pay scales. The relevant extracts of Meeting dated 20.10.1997 of Board of Directors are reproduced as below:-

"It is a fact that scale of F.I. (Jr.) of Hafed and of Inspector Food & Supplies, Haryana prior to the revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.4.79 was Rs. 140-6-170-/8-10-300. The scale of F.I. (Sr.) and AFSO was at par i.e. Rs. 225-500 but on revision w.e.f. 1.4.79 the scale of F.I. (Sr.) in Hafed was revised to Rs. par the 525- 1050 whereas in the case of AFSO of Food Department, the scale was enhanced to Rs. 700-1250 resulting into anomaly. The scale of AFSO was further enhanced to Rs. 1640-2900 whereas the scale of F.I. (Sr.) in hafed kept at Rs. 1400-2600 w.e.f. 1.1.86 leading to further anomaly in this cadre.

In order to overcome the problems of stagnation, it is

2

proposed that the posts held by various officials in different categories as below may be upgraded in the following scales:

By upgrading the above mentioned posts, the

financial implication to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month

(approximately) would accrue.

With regard to the change of designation of Field

Inspectors, it is proposed that the F.I. (Jr) may be

designated as Inspector Grade-II whereas F.I. (Sr.) as

Inspector. Similarly Store Keepers and Godown Keeper

who are at par with the F.I. (Jr.) may also be designated as

Inspector Grade-II because in the proposed Common Cadre

Rules, 1997 it has been provided that for further promotions

for the post of Manager 'C' Grade Field Inspector (Sr.), the

Field Inspector (Jr), or store Keeper/Godown Keeper will

be eligible on the basis of their inter-se-seniority.

The matter is placed before the Board of Directors

for their consideration and approval.

Agenda Item No. 5

Consideration of request of Field Inspectors (Jr.)

and Field Inspectors (Sr.) and other field staff

regarding improvement in their pay scale,

promotions etc.

The proposal was approved but it was decided that

the matter relating to the upgradation of posts of

Store-Keepers/Godown Keepers/Acctt. Store Keepers be

3

considered separately and examined afresh. The board also agreed to remove these anomalies w.e.f. 1.1.1986."

3. Further, by upgrading the above mentioned posts, financial implication to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month only would accrue and the same has already been considered by the Board of Directors in its meeting and decision taken by the Board of Directors was not implemented. The petitioners along with other identically circumstanced employees approached this Court by filing CWP No.7816 of 1999 titled as 'Sh. Samrath Kumar and others Vs. The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited and others' along with other bunch of petitions which were disposed of vide order dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure P-3) and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies was directed to pass an appropriate order in terms of Rule 5 of the Haryana State Supply and Marketing Co-operative Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1988.

4. In purported compliance, respondent No.2-the Registrar, Cooperative Societies has revisited the entire issue by saying that the duties of both these posts are different, as such, the parity claim of the petitioners to the pay scale of Inspector in Food Supplies Department was rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the meeting (Annexure P-1) and submits that at Serial No.17, the presence of the then Registrar, Co-operative Societies, namely, Sh. K.S. Bhorai, IAS, was recorded and the entire decision was taken in his presence and as such, there is substantial compliance of Rule 5 of 1988 Rules and further approval of respondent No.2 was not required. He further refers to para No.4 of the judgment rendered in CWP No.7816 of 1999 in which the relevant extract of communication dated 15.04.1994 was reproduced.

4

6. Thereafter, respondents No.1 & 2 have informed the Managing Director as recorded in para 5 of the aforesaid judgment that the Finance Department has observed that some of the State enterprises had flouted the instructions issued by the Finance Department and revised and upgraded the pay scale at their own level without taking the approval of the Finance Department. He further submits that respondent No.1-Federation is an autonomous body and the applicable rules (ibid) only requires the approval of the Registrar-respondent No.2, as such, any instructions issued by the Finance Department are per se not applicable to the employees of respondent No.1- Federation which is governed by their own rules and resolution passed by the Board of Directors from time to time.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 is not in a position to controvert the fact that the Board of Directors has taken conscious decision for removing the pay anomaly by passing the resolution (Annexure P-

1) on 20.10.1997. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not in a position to controvert the fact that pursuant to the resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 30.04.1997, the petitioners are continuously agitating their claim and their writ petition bearing CWP No.7816 of 1991 was pending and was disposed of only on 01.04.2025 (Annexure P-3).

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that, prior to the revision, the petitioners and the Inspectors in the Food and Supplies Department were placed in the same pay scale. Taking note of this historical parity, the Board of Directors considered the issue and, with a view to remove the anomaly, passed a resolution dated 30.01.1997. The said meeting was also attended by

5

Sh. K.S. Bhorai, IAS, in his capacity as the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, and no dissent or objection was recorded by him. On the contrary, a perusal of the resolution (Annexure P-1) clearly reflects that the proposal was unanimously approved, thereby restoring parity and removing the anomaly in the pay scales with effect from 01.01.1986.

9. Admittedly, as per Rule 5 of the Haryana State Supply and Marketing Cooperative Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1988 (in short "1988 Rules"), the pay scale of employees may be revised by the Board of Directors with the approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana. Rule 5 of 1988 Rules reads as:-

"5. CATEGORIES OF POSTS The various categories of posts, their nomenclature, pay scales and sanctioned strength shall be as in Annexure `A'. Provided that the Board shall be competent to add or delete any post or revise the scale of pay of any or all posts or add or reduce the number of posts mentioned in Annexure `A' with the approval of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana."

10. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. G.H. Society Ltd 2010 INSC 704, while speaking through Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan observed as under:-

10. Approval means confirming, ratifying, assenting, sanctioning or

consenting to some act or thing done by another. The very act of approval means, the act of passing judgment, the use of discretion, and determining as an adjudication therefrom unless limited by the context of the Statute. (Vide: Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia & Anr. v. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 245 : (2003) 5 SCC

83).

6

11. Further a Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Shabbir Mohammad Sayed v. Mrs. Noor Jehan Mushter Shaikh 2022 INSC 784, while speaking through Justice K.M. Joseph observed as under:-

"23. Therefore, the core principle of ratification is one by which a person approves of the act of another knowing about the act."

12. The judicial precedents establish a clear principle regarding the requirement of "approval". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sant Lal Gupta (supra) elucidated that the term "approval" connotes a conscious act of confirming, ratifying, assenting, or sanctioning an act done by another, which inherently involves the application of discretion and knowledge. Furthermore, the decision in Shabbir Mohammad Sayed (supra) clarifies that the core of ratification or approval rests on the foundation of knowledge; a person is deemed to have approved an act when they are fully aware of the act and consent to it.

13. Therefore, when a competent authority, is present at the time when a decision is made, participates in the proceedings, and raises no objection or dissent, it satisfies both the requirement of knowledge and the absence of any expression of disapproval constituting implied consent and a deemed approval of that decision.

14. It is undisputed that Sh. K.S. Bhorai, IAS, attended the meeting of the Board of Directors in his capacity as the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, at which the resolution revising the pay scales (Annexure P-1) was unanimously passed. Despite being fully aware of the nature and implications of the resolution, he neither recorded any dissent nor raised any objection.

15. In view of Rule 5 of the 1988 Rules, which mandates approval of

7

the Registrar, his presence in the meeting, awareness of the unanimous decision, and further consciously letting the resolution to pass must be construed as implied approval. Consequently, the statutory requirement stands duly satisfied, as such, his approval as required by the statute, is deemed to have been received, thereby validating the revision of the pay scales with effect from 01.01.1986.

16. In view of the above, the present writ petition is accordingly allowed. Respondent No.1-Federation is directed to grant the consequential benefits to the petitioners in terms of the resolution dated 30.01.1997 (Annexure P-1) within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

17. It is made clear that the petitioners would not be entitled to any interest. However, if the order is not complied within the stipulated time frame, the petitioners would be entitled to interest @ 6% from its due date till its actual realization.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

12.02.2026

Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

8