Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1292 (RAJ)

Laxmi Lal Gandhi v. State of Rajasthan

2011-07-05

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - All the above writ petitions involve identical controversy emerging from similar facts and circumstances, therefore, these petitions are hereby decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5332/2010, Laxmilal Gandhi & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others, are being taken into consideration. 2. As per averments made by petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5332/2010, the petitioners are working on the managerial and other posts. Contention of the petitioners is that earlier the date of superannuation of the employees of the Bank was 58 years; thereafter, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies issued directions on 22.09.2008 to all co-operative societies/banks, whereby, certain directions for enhancement of age of superannuation of the employees of co-operative societies/banks from 58 years to 60 years were communicated and vide Annex.-2 all the co-operative societies/banks were directed to enhance the age of superannuation of the employees from 58 years to 60 years contingent upon certain parameters. Order dated 17.09.2008 is as under : " dk;kZy; jftLV~kj] lgdkjh lfefr;ksa] jktLFkku] t;iqj dzekad% 15 ( 7 ) lfojk@fuxe@89 ikVZ&5 fnukad 17-9-2008 vkns'k ( jktLFkku lgdkjh lkslkbZVh fu;e] 2003 ds fu;e 59 ds vUrxZr ) foHkkx }kjk ,rn}la{ksi esa iwoZ esa tkjh leLr vkns'kksa dks vfryaf?kr djrs gq, jktLFkku lgdkjh lkslkbVh foHkkx ds fu;e 33 ( 1 ) ds vUrxZr jkT; dh fofHkUu lgkdkjh lkslkbfV;ksa ds dkfeZdksa ( vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa ) dh vf/kokf"kdhZ vk;q ds lEcU/k esa fuEukafdr funsZ'k tkjh fd;s tkrs gS%& 1- jkT; dh ,slh lgdkjh lkslkbfV;k ftuesa jkT; ljdkj dh fgLlk iwath vFkok vuqnku vkfn ds :i esa jktdh; fgr fufgr ugha gS] muesa laLFkk dk lapkyd e.My laLFkk ds fgrksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vius Lrj ls vius dkfeZdksa dh vf/kokf"kdhZ vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj vf/kdre 60 o"kZ rd djus ds lEcU/k esa fu.kZ; ys ldsxkA 2- jkT; dh ,slh lgdkjh lkslkbfV;k] ftuesa jkT; ljdkj dh fgLlk iwath vFkok vuqnku vkfn ds :i esa jktdh; fgr fufgr gS] muesa dkfeZdksa dh vf/kokf"kdhZ vk;q ds lEcU/k esa fuEukuqlkj izfdz;k viuk;h tkuh visf{kr gSA ( d ) ,slh lgdkjh lkslkbfV;ka] ftuesa foxr rhu fofRr; o"kksZa esa gkfu ugha jgh gS vFkkZr] muesa foxr rhu fofRr; o"kksZa ls fujUrj 'kq) ykHk jgk gS rFkk lkFk gh ftuesa dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa dh la[;k muds Lohd`r LVkQ Lvs~UFk ls vf/kd ugha gS] mudk lapkyd e.My laLFkk ds fgrksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vius Lrj ls vius dkfeZdksa dh vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj vf/kdre 60 o"kZ rd djus dk lEcU/k esa fu.kZ; ys ldsxkA ( [k ) ,slh lgdkjh lkslkbfV;ksa ftuesa foxr rhu fofRr; o"kksZa esa ls fdlh Hkh o"kZ gkfu dh fLFkfr jgh gks] vFkok ftuesa dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa dh la[;k laLFkk dh Lohd`r LVkWQ LVs~UFk ls vf/kd gS] mudk lapkyd e.My ;fn laLFkk ds dkjksckj vkfn O;kid fgrksa dh n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vius dkfeZdksa dh vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj vf/kdre 60 o"kZ rd djus dh vuq'kalk djrk gS rks lapkyd e.My ds bl vk'k; ds izLrko dks laLFkk dk eq[; dk;Zdkjh fu/kkZfjr izk:i esa v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh dks izsf"kr djsxkA izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh izkIr izLrkoksa ds lEcU/k esa foHkkxh; funsZ'kksa dk ikyu djrs gq, vfxze vko';d dk;Zokgh djsxkA ,slh laLFkkvksa ds fy;s laLFkk dh vkSj ls izsf"kr fd;s tkus okys izLrko dk izk:i ,oa izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjksa }kjk dh tkus okyh dk;Zokgh ds laca/k esa i`Fkd ls funsZ'k tkjh fd;s tk jgs gSA ,l0Mh0 17-9-08 lq/kka'k iar jftLV~kj " 3. After passing of the above order, certain directions were issued on 22.09.2008, in which, further directions were issued for enhancement of the age of superannuation of the employees of the co-operative societies and banks from 58 years to 60 years. The respondent Bank considered the above order dated 17.09.2008 and passed the resolution for enhancement of the age of superannuation of the employees of the respondent Bank from 58 years to 60 years and, for the same, an order dated 08.11.2008, Annex.-5 was issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Bank. The Board of Directors, in its meeting dated 25.05.2010 again considered the matter of superannuation age and vide resolution dated 25.05.2010 it is resolved that decision taken for enhancement of the age of superannuation is not in the interest of the Bank, therefore, age of superannuation was reduced from 60 to 58 years. The following resolution was passed by the Bank : " 10& leLr cSad dkfeZdksa dh vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q 60 ls ?kVkdj 58 djus ij fopkj& v/;{k egksn; cSad us crk;k fd fnukad 23-10-2008 dks cSad ds iz'kkld }kjk cSad dkfeZdksa dh vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ dh xbZ Fkh bl ij v/;{k egksn; cSad us crk;k fd mDr vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q c<+kuk orZeku esa cSad dh fofRr; fLFkfr ,oa ykHknk;drk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, fgrdj ugha gS vr% bl vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q dh 58 o"kZ dh tkuk mfpr gksxk bl ij izcU/k funs'kd cSad us crk;k fd fnukad 23-10-2008 dks fy;k x;k izLrko Hkh iw.kZ lapkyd e.My ( iz'kkld ) }kjk fy;k x;k gS] vr% lapkyd e.My }kjk vius iwoZ izLrko dk iqujkoyksdu dj mDr izLrko dks fujLr djuk mfpr ugha gSA bl ij lapkyd e.My us ckn fopkj foe'kZ dj loZ lEefr ls fu.kZ; fy;k fd fnukad 23-10-2008 dks fy;k x;k izLrko cSad fgr esa ugha ekurs gq;s iqu% cSad ds leLr dkfeZdksa dh vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q 60 o"kZ ls ?kVkdj 58 o"kZ dh tkrh gSA " 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once a conscious decision has been taken in pursuance of the directions issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies vide order dated 17.09.2008 for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, then, there was no occasion for the Board of Directors to re-consider the matter and to reduce the age of superannuation of the employees from 60 years to 58 years, therefore, the impugned action/resolution of the respondent Bank deserves to be quashed, in which, the Managing Director gave dissenting opinion. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that resolution No.10 of the Board of Directors deserves to quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that fixing the age of superannuation is the prerogative of the employer, therefore, it cannot be said that resolution No.10 is illegal in any manner. More so, in the interest of the Bank, these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents invited attention of the Court towards judgment of the Division Bench passed in the case of Paschimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. v. State, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.165/2010 decided on 08.03.2011. 6. After taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the admitted fact that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies issued directions for enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years of the employees of such Banks and societies which are running in profit; and, in pursuance of that, decision was taken by the Bank for enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. Thereafter, the matter was re-considered in the meeting of the Board of Directors without any agenda. Of course, there is power left with the Board of Directors to re-consider even if the resolution is not in the agenda; but, at the same time, in my opinion, such re-consideration has to be circumscribed within the parameters laid down by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Upon perusal of the impugned resolution No.10, it is obvious that none of the parameters laid down by the Registrar in the order dated 17.09.2010 were taken into consideration and, straight away, it has been resolved that age of superannuation is reduced from 60 years to 58 years. 7. Upon perusal of the impugned resolution No.10, it is obvious that none of the parameters laid down by the Registrar in the order dated 17.09.2010 were taken into consideration and, straight away, it has been resolved that age of superannuation is reduced from 60 years to 58 years. 7. In the case of Paschimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.165/2010 and 93 other special appeals, decided on 08.03.2011, the Division Bench of this Court held that in the interest of the institution, the matter can be remitted to the Bank again for re-considering the matter of enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years because earlier a conscious decision was taken by the Co-operative Society for the purpose of enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. 8. In this view of the matter, while following the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 08.03.2011 rendered in the case of Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.165/2010 and 93 other special appeals, I deem it just and proper to quash the impugned resolution No.10 passed by the respondent Bank on 25.05.2010 whereby age of superannuation of employees of the respondent Bank is sought to be reduced from 60 years to 58 years passed by the Board of Directors and remit the matter again to the Bank for re-considering the matter of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years with the directions that at the time of considering the matter the respondent Bank shall take into account the parameters laid down by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies keeping in view the interest of the Bank. Order is accordingly made. 9. The respondent Bank is directed to re-consider and decide the matter of enhancement of the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years afresh within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and pass appropriate orders. Till then, the petitioners shall be allowed to work in the Bank. 10. All these writ petitions are allowed in the terms indicated above.Petition Allowed. *******