ORDER : Sameer Jain, J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the present bunch of petitions, involving common questions of fact and law, are jointly taken up for final disposal. For the purpose of recording arguments and/or submissions, the lead file is taken as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6973/2018 titled as Gulzari Lal vs. State of Rajasthan. 2. By way of the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the following prayers are sought, as reproduced herein-under:- “(i) the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and this Hon’ble Court may pleased be issue a writ, order or direction in the nature whereof. (ii) the respondent bank be directed to raise the superannuation age of the petitioner in order to bring at par with the similarly situated persons in the Bank itself as well as in other Cooperative Bank and Autonomous bodies of the State. (iii) by an appropriate writ order or direction this Hon’ble Court may kindly quash and set aside the superannuation date of the petitioner i.e. 31.03.2016 as the petitioner has been retired by the respondent bank on this date. While extending the superannuation age up to 60 years and consequential benefits may also be allowed accordingly to the petitioner. (iv) by an appropriate writ order or direction the respondent bank may kindly be directed to be deemed to have join the duty after 31.03.2016, because the respondent bank has already allowed other similarly employees to continue in the bank up to superannuation age of 60 years and all consequential benefit may also kindly be allowed to petitioner accordingly. (v) Any other appropriate order, direction or relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts of the circumstance of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner in the larger interest of equity justice and law pending the present Writ Petition.” 3. Concisely noted, the cause and controversy in the present bunch of petitions arose when the petitioner-employees, after having attained the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years, applied for re-employment before the respondent-employer for a period of 2 years; however, the said application(s) for re- employment were rejected and as a result, the petitioner- employees superannuated at the age of 58 years sans further re- employment till the age of 60 years. 4. 4. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Himanshu Jain, submitted that by way of the instant petition, a challenge has been raised against the validity and legality of the orders dated 27.03.2018 (23.08.2018) and 31.03.2018, whereby the petitioners were superannuated upon attaining the age of 58 years. 5. At the outset, prior to advancing arguments on merits, Mr. Jain appraised the Court regarding the material fact of an interim order having been passed by this Court during the tenure of the present petition, whereby vide order dated 03.04.2018, this Court had extended interim indulgence in favour of the petitioners, whilst staying the effect and operation of the order impugned dated 27.03.2018. However, despite the said order dated 03.04.2018 being in currency sans any appeal filed against the same, the respondent-Bank terminated the services of the petitioners after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. 6. For advancing arguments on merits, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper vide order dated 30.04.1985. Subsequently, looking to the petitioners unblemished service record, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Manager (Grade-D) vide order dated 30.11.2011. In this background, learned counsel averred that initially the age of superannuation for the bank employees in the respondent-Bank was earmarked as 55 years, which was subsequently increased to 58 and 60 years. In this regard, the Registrar-Co-operative Societies issued directions for the submission of a proposal by respective banks/authorities regarding the increasement of age superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. Admittedly, the respondent-Bank did not increase the said age of superannuation. Rather, instead of increasing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, the respondent-Bank adopted a mechanism whereby extension, by way of re-employment, was granted in favour of the retiring employees aged 58 years, for a period of two years, until they attained the age of 60 years. 7. In order to substantiate upon the aforesaid claim, learned counsel relied upon the orders dated 15.07.2015, 30.04.2014 and 09.05.2011, whereby the age of superannuation qua other employees, namely Mr. Karamveer Kateva, Mr. Subhash Chandra Gupta and Mr. Satyendra Nath Pareek respectively, was increased from 58 years to 60 years. 8. Therefore, taking note of the aforesaid, the petitioner forwarded an application before the respondent-Bank dated 30.03.2018 seeking extension of his services till the age of 60 years. Karamveer Kateva, Mr. Subhash Chandra Gupta and Mr. Satyendra Nath Pareek respectively, was increased from 58 years to 60 years. 8. Therefore, taking note of the aforesaid, the petitioner forwarded an application before the respondent-Bank dated 30.03.2018 seeking extension of his services till the age of 60 years. However, the same came to be rejected, contrary to the fate of the extensions granted to the other employees, as noted above. In this regard, learned counsel contended that there was no intelligible differentia to distinguish between the petitioners application for extension till the age of 60 years as opposed to the extensions granted to the other employees i.e. Mr. Karamveer Kateva, Mr. Subhash Chandra Gupta and Mr. Satyendra Nath Pareek. 9. Learned counsel also contended that vide Proposal No.14 of the 28th Annual Report dated 04.02.2018, it was proposed that due to the lack of necessary staff, extension may be granted to the retiring employees, if required, in the interest of the employer/institution. Therefore, the order of superannuation at the age of 58 years and rejection of the application for re-employment is de hors the recommendations/proposals formulated by the said report. Lastly, Mr. Himanshu Jain averred that the petitioner not only holds and unblemished service record, but also holds the qualification of CAIIB, which is the most distinguished qualification in the banking sector. Therefore, despite the petitioners qualifications also being higher than the other employees whose services were extended till the age of 60 years, the orders impugned superannuating the petitioner at the age of 58 years have been passed. As a result, it was prayed that the orders dated 27.03.2018 (23.08.2018) and 31.03.2018 be quashed and set aside. 10. In order to draw out a case for discrimination sans intelligible differentia, learned counsel placed reliance upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Ramesh Chandra vs. Delhi Administration: 1996 (10) SCC 409 and State of Mysore and Anr. vs. H. Srinivasmurthy: 1976 (1) SCC 817 . 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has submitted that the order for extension to the age 60 years from 58 years, as issued by the Registrar Co-operative Societies, was purely conditional in nature, leaving ample discretion with the respondent-Bank to formulate policies and/or take decisions in the best interests of the respondent-Bank. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has submitted that the order for extension to the age 60 years from 58 years, as issued by the Registrar Co-operative Societies, was purely conditional in nature, leaving ample discretion with the respondent-Bank to formulate policies and/or take decisions in the best interests of the respondent-Bank. Therefore, considering administrative actions and also, the prevailing circumstances, extension was granted in favour of certain employees to the age of 60 years, as highlighted by the petitioner. However, parity cannot be sought with the said employees, as looking to the financial plight of the respondent-Bank, the respondent-Bank was not in the position to grant an extension in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, there is no discrimination caused to the petitioner, as the orders impugned have been passed after duly considering the requisite stipulations, in exercise of the discretion bestowed upon the respondent-Bank. In support of the arguments advanced above, learned counsel placed reliance upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. vs. Jag Mohan Lal: 1989 Supplementary (1) SCC 221. 12. Heard learned counsel for both the sides, scanned through the record of the petition and perused through the judgments cited at Bar. 13. Upon a considered perusal of the record of the instant petition and also the arguments advanced, the following undisputed and/or admitted facts emerge, as noted herein-under:- 13.1. That the petitioners rendered their services as regular employees of the respondent-Bank. 13.2. That the sole grievance of the petitioners pertains to the impugned action of the respondent-Bank by way of which the petitioners were superannuated at the age of 58 years, as opposed to being granted the extension to render their services for a further period of two years i.e. till they attain the age of 60 years. 13.3. That previously, the extension as sought by the petitioners till the age of 60 years, was granted in favour of Mr. Karamveer Kateva, Mr. Subhash Chandra Gupta and Mr. Satyendra Nath Pareek, vide orders dated 15.07.2015, 30.04.2014 and 09.05.2011 respectively. 13.4. That it is also an undisputed fact that ever since the grant of extension of two years in favour of the employees noted above, no further extensions have been granted in favour of any other employee by the respondent-Bank. 13.5. Karamveer Kateva, Mr. Subhash Chandra Gupta and Mr. Satyendra Nath Pareek, vide orders dated 15.07.2015, 30.04.2014 and 09.05.2011 respectively. 13.4. That it is also an undisputed fact that ever since the grant of extension of two years in favour of the employees noted above, no further extensions have been granted in favour of any other employee by the respondent-Bank. 13.5. That over the course of the past few years, the financial health of the respondent-Bank has been in shambles, as is also reflected by the balance sheet of the respondent-Bank. The financial distress and plight of the respondent-Bank is not disputed by the petitioners as well. 14. In this background, this Court deems it apposite to take note of the Urban Co-operative Banks, Employees Service Rules, 2006 (hereinafter, Rules of 2006). More particularly, Rule 14 of the said Rules of 2006 is reproduced herein-under:- “The age of superannuation shall be 58 years but the age of superannuation for class IV shall be 60 years subject to the proviso that service of an employee who attain the age of 55 years shall be terminable at a notice of 3 months of either side. Where it appears, desirable in the interest of the Bank, the Board shall have the discretion to re-employ a person who retires under this Rule for such period but no beyond the age of 60 years and on such terms and conditions as the Board may determine in each case.” 15. Upon an analysis of Rule 14, it is indubitably noted that qua the employees serving at the post of the petitioners, the said provision categorically prescribes the age of superannuation to be 58 years, with a caveat that ‘if desirable in the interests of the Bank’, the Board of the respondent-Bank shall have the discretion to re-employ a person who retires under this Rule for such a period which shall not extend beyond the age of 60 years, on terms to be determined by the respondent-Bank. 16. Therefore, it is made abundantly clear that the very discretion to extend the service of an employee, purely by way of re-employment for a period of two years, lay with the respondent-Bank. Moreover, in order to exercise said discretion, the respondent-Bank had to ensure and/or keep into consideration the fact that the said extension/re-employment shall be desirable in the interests of the Bank. Moreover, in order to exercise said discretion, the respondent-Bank had to ensure and/or keep into consideration the fact that the said extension/re-employment shall be desirable in the interests of the Bank. In this regard, reliance can also be placed upon the order passed by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies on 29.06.2020, under Rule 39 of the Societies Rules of 2003, which is reproduced herein-under:- 17. It is also noteworthy to appreciate the fact that vide Annexure-R/2/9 dated 17.09.2008 i.e. order issued by the Office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur, the respondent-Bank and other akin institutions were informed that they may extend the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years as per the decision of the Board, provided that the said decision to extend/enhance the age, shall be taken after duly considering the financial position of the respondent-Bank including their profit and loss account etc. The relevant extract of the order dated 17.09.2008 is reproduced herein-under:- 18. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, it can be fairly noted that the orders impugned dated 27.03.2018 (23.08.2018) and 31.03.2018, whereby the petitioners were superannuated upon attaining the age of 58 years as opposed to the extension sought for 60 years, do not call for any interference of this Court, as it is noted that the granting of extension for a period of two years in favour of the petitioner did not lay in the best interests of the respondent-Bank, especially when it is an admitted/undisputed fact that over the course of the past few years, the financial health of the respondent-Bank had been in shambles, as is also reflected by the balance sheet of the respondent-Bank. 19. Therefore, looking to the admitted and undisputed financial distress of the respondent-Bank and also taking note of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2006 and also the order dated 17.09.2008, as passed by the Registrar-Co-operative Societies, this Court does not deem it appropriate to extend interference in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. Therefore, looking to the admitted and undisputed financial distress of the respondent-Bank and also taking note of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2006 and also the order dated 17.09.2008, as passed by the Registrar-Co-operative Societies, this Court does not deem it appropriate to extend interference in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. Furthermore, looking to the observations made herein-above, more particularly regarding the undisputed poor financial health of the respondent-Bank, this Court deems it appropriate to note that the judgments cited by the petitioner in the case of Ramesh Chandra (Supra) and H. Srinivasmurthy (Supra), are distinguishable, solely on the basis that the intelligible differentia, in extending the benefit of age enhancement in favour of Mr. Karamveer Kateva, Mr. Subhash Chandra Gupta and Mr. Satyendra Nath Pareek, vide orders dated 15.07.2015, 30.04.2014 and 09.05.2011 respectively, was the previous financial health of the respondent-Bank, which has over time deteriorated, as is also reflected by the fact that ever since the grant of extension of two years in favour of the employees noted above, no further extensions have been granted in favour of any other employee by the respondent-Bank. Therefore, no discrimination sans intelligible differentia has been committed against the petitioner, as it was only looking to the best and ‘desired interests’ of the respondent-Bank, in terms of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2006, that the extension/age enhancement was not granted in favour of the petitioners. 21. It is equally important to place reliance upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Jag Mohan Lal (Supra), wherein it was held that extension after superannuation is a subject which is solely within the discretion of the employer or the government. The relevant extract is reproduced herein-under:- “The Bank has no obligation to extend services of all officers even if they are found suitable in every respect. The interest of the Bank is the primary consideration for giving extension of service. With due regard to exigencies of service, the Bank in one year may give extension to all suitable retiring officers. In another year, it may give extension to some and not to all. In a subsequent year, it may not give extension to any one of the officers. The Bank may have a lot of fresh recruits in one year. With due regard to exigencies of service, the Bank in one year may give extension to all suitable retiring officers. In another year, it may give extension to some and not to all. In a subsequent year, it may not give extension to any one of the officers. The Bank may have a lot of fresh recruits in one year. The Bank may not need the services of all retired persons in another year. The Bank may have lesser workload in a succeeding year. The retiring persons cannot in any year demand “extension to all or none”. If we concede that right to retiring persons, then the very purpose of giving extension in the interest of the Bank would be defeated. We are, therefore, of opinion that there is no scope for complaining of arbitrariness in the matter of giving extension of service to retiring persons.” 22. Therefore, in light of the foregoing observations, and also taking note of the fact that no specific malafides are alleged against the specific officers and/or Board of the respondent-Bank, this Court does not deem it appropriate to extend interference in the present bunch of petitions while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. Lastly, qua the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the non-compliance of the interim order dated 03.04.2018 staying the effect and operation of the order impugned dated 23.03.2018 and 27.03.2018, this Court deems it appropriate to note that the currency of the order dated 03.04.2018 was only until the next date i.e. 23.04.2018. Thereafter, the interim granted vide order dated 03.04.2018 was further continued. Subsequently, the matter was heard on the stay application on 27.09.2019, when this Court explicitly refused to grant stay in the matter, whilst noting that if ultimately the Court was of the view that the petitioner was required to be allowed to serve up to 60 years, then compensation qua the intervening period as well as salary in connection therewith could be subsequently granted to the petitioner. Therefore, upon the passing of the 27.09.2019, the order dated 03.04.2018 automatically lost currency. 24. Accordingly, in cumulative view of the observations made herein-above, the petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.