Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 248 (JHR)

Shayam Bihari Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-02-29

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2008
JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J. 1. The appellants were appointed as paid Managers in the Co-operative Society. Subsequently, they were officiated as PACS Manager. They filed a writ petition for directing or commanding upon the respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioners, the paid managers of the Co-operative Society from 58 to 60 years at par with the State employees or employees of the Central Co-operative Bank. 2. The said application was dismissed by a learned single Judge by order dated 11.7.2006 mainly on the ground that the point raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment in WP (S) No. 814 of 2005, wherein it has been held that the Managers of the Co-operative Society cannot be treated to be Government Employees, and, therefore, superannuation of the employees of the Co- operative Society cannot be fixed to be 60 years 3. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 4. The gist of the contentions of the appellants in support of their plea is as follows: (i) The petitioners-appellants have been controlled and supervised by the Rules and Regulations of the Central Co-operative Bank. (ii) As per Rule 66-B of the Co-operative Societies Act, the Government has got the powers to regulate and pass orders with reference to the conditions of service of the employees of the Co-operative Society. (iii) The State Government has taken a decision of enhancing the age of superannuation of all the employees of the State Government from 58 years to 60 years. (iv) The State Government, which exercises the substantial control over the Society, it is obvious from Section 66B of the Act should have exercised the said powers to enhance the retirement age of Co-operative Society also. (v) Further, as per the orders of the High Court of Patna, already Dearness Allowance of the Employees of the Co-operative Society was enhanced by the State Government, and therefore the employees of the Co-operative Society also should be fixed at par with the State Government (vi) The petitioners-appellants relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in [State of Bihar and Ors. v. Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabhandhak Seva Sangh, Patna and Ors.] 5. In this case, Giridih Central Co-operative Bank has also filed an application, IA No. 481 of 2008. as Intervener opposing the claim of the petitioners. The State Government has also filed a Counter Affidavit. 6. v. Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabhandhak Seva Sangh, Patna and Ors.] 5. In this case, Giridih Central Co-operative Bank has also filed an application, IA No. 481 of 2008. as Intervener opposing the claim of the petitioners. The State Government has also filed a Counter Affidavit. 6. The Advocate General on behalf of the State Government as well as Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, on behalf of Giridih Central Co-operative Bank, the Intervener, have argued the matter at length, mainly contending that the petitioners cannot claim the privileges which have been extended to the State Government employees or to the employees of Central Co-operative Banks. They have also cited 1991 (1) BLJ 72 , Md. Ali v. The State of Bihar and Ors. to show that already this point has been decided by referring to the Rule 33(1) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959. 7. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have given our careful consideration to the respective submissions. 8. The main contention of the appellants is that the age of superannuation of the employees of Co-operative Society must be enhanced as has been done in the case of employees of Co-operative Banks and the State Government. They cite 9 , State of Bihar and Ors. v. Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabhandhak Seva Sangh, Patna and Ors. 9. It is specifically argued by the Advocate General as well as the counsel for the intervener that the question about the age of superannuation for the Co- operative Society employees has been decided in the case of Md. Ali v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1991(1) BLJ 72 . 10. In the above-mentioned judgment, there is a reference to the order in respect of Rule 33(1) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959. The rule confers power on the Registrar of the Co-operative Society to fix the age of superannuation. Accordingly, the age of superannuation has been already fixed as 58 years as is evident from the order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, dated 12.10.1983. 11. As pointed out by the learned Advocate General, admittedly, the petitioners are not the employees of the State Government. The State of Jharkhand, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 33(1) already framed Rules laying down service condition of the Co-operative Society. It was notified and served vide memo No. 35 dated 21st July 1984. 11. As pointed out by the learned Advocate General, admittedly, the petitioners are not the employees of the State Government. The State of Jharkhand, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 33(1) already framed Rules laying down service condition of the Co-operative Society. It was notified and served vide memo No. 35 dated 21st July 1984. Though the Stale of Jharkhand has raised the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, no separate notification has been issued not any rule has been framed under proviso to Rule 33(1) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959. 12. It is also pointed out by the counsel for the respondents/intervener that the paid managers of the Co-operative Societies are not the employees of the District Co-operative Bank and hence, they cannot claim equality with the employees of District Co-operative Bank. 13. As indicated above, they are admittedly, not the Government employees. This has been held by the Patna High Court in 1993 (3) PLJR 110, Bihar Sahkarita Prabhandak Sangh v. State of Bihar and Ors. 14. The heavy reliance has been placed by the appellants upon the judgment of Supreme Court in , State of Bihar and Ors. v. Bihar Rajya Sahkarlta Prabandhak Seva Sangh, Patna and Ors. In this case Supreme Court has observed that the service of the paid managers, who have appeared and passed the examination conducted by the State Government and the paid managers who not been able to clear the examination or have attained the age of 50 years on the, date on which the scheme was promulgated shall continue till they attain the age of superannuation. As pointed out by the learned Advocate General, appellants are such managers, who have neither been able to clear the examination nor have attained the age of 50 years on the date of promulgation of the scheme. Further, the judgment of the Supreme Court was on the basis of the affidavit filed by the State Government, which has been quoted in the said judgment. Those facts would not apply to the present facts of the case. 15. As per the judgment in 1993 (3) PLJR 110 the cadre of paid managers was created to the base level organisation. Those facts would not apply to the present facts of the case. 15. As per the judgment in 1993 (3) PLJR 110 the cadre of paid managers was created to the base level organisation. The Patna High Court, in the above judgment, out of humane approach permitted the payment of Dearness Allowance, but did not give any finding with reference to the similar treatment to be given to the employees of the Co-operative Society like that of the State Government employees or the employees of the, Central Co-operative Banks. 16. It is also pointed out that all the appellants have admittedly retired in the year 2006 itself and they are not justified in claiming parity either with the employees of the State Government or the employees of the District Central Co-operation Banks. Even as per the judgment of this Court in 2006 (3) JCR 294 , Subhash Bhushan Mahanti v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. the benefit extended to State employees from 26.10.2004 will not be applicable to the employees of Co- operative Banks. On the other hand, it was specifically held that all the employees of Co-operative banks who had retired prior to 28.12.2005 are not entitled to continue in the service till the age of 60 years on the basis of the resolution of the State Government. This would prove that the employees of the District Central Co-operative Banks are not Government employees and the benefit extended to the State Government employees do not automatically become applicable to the employees of Co-operative banks 17. It has been specifically held in Shri Krishna Prasad v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. in WP (S) No. 814 of 2005 that the paid managers are not Government employees, rather they are the employees of the Co-operative Society and the State in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 33(1) of the Bihar Co- operative Societies Rules, 1959 has already framed rules laying down the service conditions of the Managers of the Society fixing the age of superannuation as 58 years. Admittedly, this has been affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 357 of 2005 dated 9.11.2006. 18. As far as the power of the State exercising control over the Co-operative Society by virtue of Section 66(B) of the Jharkhand is concerned, it is aimed at vesting control over the Society in the State Government through the Registrar. Co-operative Societies. Admittedly, this has been affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 357 of 2005 dated 9.11.2006. 18. As far as the power of the State exercising control over the Co-operative Society by virtue of Section 66(B) of the Jharkhand is concerned, it is aimed at vesting control over the Society in the State Government through the Registrar. Co-operative Societies. In order to ensure that a minimum level is maintained in appointment of personnel of the Co-operative Society, Registrar has been delegated with such powers. Hence, the contention of the appellant that by virtue of Section 66(B) of the Act, they are also entitled to similar benefit as those of State Government employees is not tenable 19. from the above discussion, it is clear that the appellants are neither the employees of the Co-operative Banks nor the employees of the State Government, and as such they cannot compel the State Government to extend the benefits, given to the State Government Employees, to the appellants, especially when the separate rules have been prescribed under Rule 33(1) of the Rules regarding the service condition of age of superannuation for the employees of Society. Therefore, there is no merit. This appeal is dismissed. However; there shall be no order as to costs. D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 20. I agree.