Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1984 (RAJ)

Som Nath Vig v. State of Rajasthan

2010-12-01

GOVIND MATHUR

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - The Registrar, Cooperative Societies by office order dated 17.9.2008, while exercising powers under Rule 39 of the Rules of 2003, instructed all the Cooperative Societies in the State to consider the issue pertaining to enhancement of the age of superannuation for their employees from 58 years to 60 years, subject to certain conditions. The petitioner, who was going to retire from service on 1.5.2009 preferred a petition for writ (SBCWP No.3039/2009) before this Court seeking a direction for respondent-Sri Ganganagar Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited to act upon the instructions given by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and further to extend the age of superannuation. The petition for writ aforesaid came to be decided on 29.4.2009 with the following directions to the respondent Society:- "It is directed that the respondent shall convene the meeting of the Board and consider the directions issued by the Registrar on 17.9.2008 and shall take a decision and since the petitioner is going to retire on 2.5.2009 and in such a short period, the Board cannot take a decision by convening the meeting, therefore, any order if passed, then it be passed taking into account that the petitioner's right how can be safeguarded, if the Board decides to take the decision to increase the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years. The respondent shall convene the meeting in accordance with its bye-laws and expeditiously pass the resolution in either way within a period of one month and convey it to the petitioner. In case, any order adverse is passed against the petitioner, the petitioner will be free to approach this Court." 2. The Managing Committee of the respondent Cooperative Society vide its resolution No.19 dated 19.2.2010 changed the age of superannuation for its employees from 58 years to 60 years under an order dated 30.4.2010 (Annex.-11). By this petition for writ, the petitioner is seeking a direction for respondent Society to declare his retirement from service on 1.5.2009 bad and further he may be permitted to continue in service till acquiring the age of 60 years. 3. By this petition for writ, the petitioner is seeking a direction for respondent Society to declare his retirement from service on 1.5.2009 bad and further he may be permitted to continue in service till acquiring the age of 60 years. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Society has decided to enhance the age of retirement in pursuant to the instructions given by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, thus, the effect to the same should be given from the date of the order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and as such, the petitioner should also be allowed to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. It is also urged that the General Manager of the respondent Society was not interested to extend the age of retirement, when the petitioner was in service due to certain malicious and extraneous considerations. 4. Heard. 5. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies instructed the various Cooperative Societies under the letter dated 17.9.2008 to extend the age of superannuation on acquiring certain Bench marks. As per the order dated 30.4.2010, the Society after acquiring such Bench marks decided to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years under resolution dated 19.2.2010. The petitioner stood retired from service quite earlier to that and therefore, the age of retirement enhanced subsequently does not provide him any right for re-employment in service and further to remain as such upto the age of 60 years. The decision of the respondent Cooperative Society is prospective in nature and therefore, that is applicable to the employees who are / were in 4 service of the respondent on the date when the decision was taken. The petitioner admittedly retired from service quite earlier to that and therefore, he cannot claim any right under the order aforesaid. 6. The allegation of malafides on part of the General Manager is absolutely irrelevant in present controversy. As a matter of fact, a decision for enhancement of the age for superannuation was to be taken by the Managing Committee and not by the General Manager. Beside that the burden to establish mala fides is quite heavy to discharge and the vague allegations made in casual manner to suggest ulterior motives behind an act cannot be accepted. The allegation in the present case is not at all supported by proper pleadings and adequate proof. Beside that the burden to establish mala fides is quite heavy to discharge and the vague allegations made in casual manner to suggest ulterior motives behind an act cannot be accepted. The allegation in the present case is not at all supported by proper pleadings and adequate proof. It is also pertinent to note that the Managing Committee, while modifying the age of superannuation was exercising its legislative duties and while doing so it cannot be accused of having a decision of general nature for extraneous purpose. 7. The petition for the reasons above is bereft of merit, thus, is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******