Mansingh vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 31.3.2011, whereby, the petitioner was superannuated upon attaining the age of 58 years with effect from 31.3.2011, so also, Annex. 9 dated 24.3.2011, minutes of the meeting whereby resolution was passed by the Board of Management, Uttari Rajasthan Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Bikaner for the purpose of superannuating the employees after attaining the age of 58 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier a decision was taken for enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years but, later on, it was decided to reduce the age of superannuation from 60 to 58 years and the same was challenged by way of filing writ petition before this Court; and, ultimately, the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 8.3.2011 passed in Paschimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. vs. Kanti Lal Ojha, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 165/2010, decided along with 93 other appeals, ordered that the matter may be reconsidered in the light of notification issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 17.9.2008.

The respondent Urmul Dairy passed the impugned resolution dated 24.3.2011 after taking into consideration the said notification dated 17.9.2008 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies resolved that the employees shall be superannuated after attaining the age of 58 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the said resolution is illegal because it is in contravention of the notification dated 17.9.2008 as well as judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, on 17.9.2008 following directions were issued by the Registrar Co-operative Societies:

Upon perusal of the aforesaid notification/order, it is obvious that prime consideration for taking the decision for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years was that the society should run in profit for last three years and employees should not be more than the sanctioned strength. But upon perusal of the resolution under challenge dated 24.3.2011, manifestly the main reason for fixing the age of superannuation as 58 years is that number of staff is more than sanctioned strength and respondent Sangh is running in loss. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the respondents have complied with the directions issued by this Court while deciding the age of superannuation of the employees of the Sangh and passed resolution dated 24.3.2011 in consonance with the notification/order dated 17.9.2008 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, in which, no illegality is found. Hence, there is no force in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.