Shyam Singh vs State Co Operative Depors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3562 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8826/2011

Shyam Singh S/o Shri Kare Singh, aged about 58 years, R/o
Village Sonaga. Tehsil Kirawali Distt. Agra (U.P.) presently R/o
Cheema Bhawan, Bharatpur.
                                                       Petitioner
                            Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through the principal Secretary, Co-
operative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Registrar, Co-operative Socities, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Joint Registrar, Sahakari Samitiyan, Division Bharatpur.
4. The Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Bharatpur,
through it's Managing Director.
                                                      Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12138/2010

Vijendra Cheema S/o Late Shri Satya Dev Sharma, aged about 58 years, R/o Cheema Bhawan, bharatpur Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through the principal Secretary, Co- operative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Registrar, Co-operative Socities, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Joint Registrar, Sahakari Samitiyan, Division Bharatpur.

4. The Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Bharatpur, through it's Managing Director.

Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12182/2020

Harbhan Singh S/o Shri Bhim singh, Aged about 58 years, R/o Vijay Nagar, Saras Hotel, Bharatpur

Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through the principal Secretary, Co- operative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Registrar, Co-operative Socities, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Joint Registrar, Sahakari Samitiyan, Division Bharatpur.

4. The Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Bharatpur, through it's Managing Director.

Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14357/2010

(2 of 6) [CW-8826/2011]

Laxman Singh S/o Shri Banay Singh, Aged about 58 years, R/o Village Salabad. Teh. Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur.

Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through the principal Secretary, Co- operative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Registrar, Co-operative Socities, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Joint Registrar, Sahakari Samitiyan, Division Bharatpur.

4. The Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Bharatpur, through it's Managing Director.

Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2559/2011

Umesh Chandra Sharma S/o Shri J.K. Sharma, Aged about 59 years, R/o Devi Prasad Goswami Marg, Kherapati Mohalla, Bharatpur, Distt. Bharatpur.

Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through the principal Secretary, Co- operative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Registrar, Co-operative Socities, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Joint Registrar, Sahakari Samitiyan, Division Bharatpur.

4. The Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Bharatpur, through it's Managing Director.

Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1282/2012

Nawab Singh son of Shri Balo Singh, aged about 58 years, r./o Gauri Shankar Colony, Near Saras Hotel, Bharatpur.

Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through the principal Secretary, Co- operative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Registrar, Co-operative Socities, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Joint Registrar, Sahakari Samitiyan, Division Bharatpur.

4. The Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bharatpur, through it's Managing Director.

Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16305/2017

Vijendra Singh Cheema son of Late Shri Satyadev Cheema, 63

(3 of 6) [CW-8826/2011]

years, resident of Cheema Bhawan, Mori Char Bag, Bharatpur

Petitioner Versus Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Bharatpur, through it's Managing Director.

Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma.

Mr. J.P. Sharma.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG.

Mr. Rahul Kamwar.

Ms. Priyanka Pareek.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order

06/05/2022

1. Application for early listing is allowed.

2. Since identical question of law is involved in these petitions,

therefore with consent of the parties, these writ petitions have

been heard finally and are being decided by the present order.

3. On the request made by the parties, the facts have been

noticed from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8826/2011 and the prayer

made therein reads as under:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and

(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 27.10.2008 as far it restricts the petitioner for enhancing his age of superannuation upto 60 years may kindly be quashed ans set aside with all consequential benefits.

(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed not to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f. 31.07.2011 on attaining the age of 58 years and he may be allowed to continue in service upto the superannuation age of 60 years with all consequential benefits.

(c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to serve the Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.

(4 of 6) [CW-8826/2011]

Bharatpur upto the superannuation age of 60 years in compliance of the resolution dated 14.10.2008 with all consequential benefits.

(d) if during pendency of the writ petition any order retiring the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years is passed the same may be taken on record and may be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.

(e) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(f) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

4. Counsels for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners

are employees of Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,

Bharatpur, after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years

the bank has retired the petitioners from service, while the circular

dated 27.10.2008 issued by the Registrar Co-operative Society,

Jaipur provides for enhancing the age of superannuation of the

employees from 58 to 60 years. Counsel further submits that in

compliance of the circular dated 27.10.2008, the respondents

enhanced the age of superannuation of certain employees but that

has not been done in the case of the petitioners which amounts to

discrimination in not enhancing the age of superannuation of the

petitioners from 58 to 60 years. Counsel further submits that no

reason whatsoever has been assigned by the respondents in not

enhancing the age of superannuation of the petitioners from 58 to

60 years. Counsel further submits that in other Co-operative Bank

also the age of superannuation of the certain employees has been

enhanced as per their choice and prayed for allowing the writ

petitions filed by the petitioners.

(5 of 6) [CW-8826/2011]

5. Counsels for the respondents submitted that the circular

dated 27.10.2008 issued by the Registrar Co-operative Society,

Jaipur, provides discretion to the Bank for extension of the service

of the employees, if the same is necessary for proper functioning

and running the Bank. Counsel further submits that the petitioners

cannot claim as a matter of right for extension of their services,

however, they have already attained the age of superannuation.

6. In support of their contentions, counsels relied upon the

judgments passed by the Division Bench of this court in the

matter of Narendra Kumar Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2805/2013)

decided on 09.01.2014 and further relied upon the judgment

passed by the Division Bench of this court in the matter of

Balwant Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.3660/2006) decided on 16.05.2006.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. These writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioners cannot claim as a

matter of right for extension of service; secondly, as per circular

dated 27.10.2008, the discretion was given to the bank for

extension of services of those employees whose services are

necessary for proper and smooth day to day functioning of the

Bank; thirdly, the extension of service as per circular dated

27.10.2008 is only upto the period till the regularly selected

employees are made available; fourthly, in my considered view no

illegality has been committed by the respondents in not extending

the age of superannuation of the petitioners; lastly, in the facts

and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to exercise the

(6 of 6) [CW-8826/2011]

jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.

9. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed.

10. All the pending applications are disposed of

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

MG/56-62

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)