SURENDRA KUMAR ARORA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Surendra Kumar Arora
State of Uttarakhand and others
Click here to view full judgement.
Barin Ghosh, J. -
(1.) Delay Condonation Application No. 12557 of 2011.
Objection against Delay Condonation Appln. No. 13060 of 2011
(2.) THE objection to the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal has been considered by us. On a perusal of the said objection, we are of the view that there is no substance in the said objection in respect of condonation of delay. We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, and we are satisfied with the reasons furnished for filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time. We, accordingly, allow the application for condonation of delay.
Special Appeal No. 277 of 2011
The appellant was compulsorily retired by the respondent -employer. While so doing it was held out that Fundamental Rules 56(c) of U.P. Fundamental Rules has been invoked. In the writ petition it was contended by the appellant that Fundamental Rule 56 (C) of U.P. Fundamental Rules is not applicable to the establishment of the respondent -employer and, accordingly, exercise of power thereunder is not sustainable. It was brought to the notice of the writ court that conditions of service of the employees of the respondent -employer are governed, amongst others, by the Urban Co -operative Bank Ltd. Dehradun Employees Service Rules, 2002 and, under Rule 21 (b) thereof the respondent -employer is entitled to retire compulsorily any of its employees after such employee has attained the age of 50 years with an obligation to follow the rule laid down in Rule 56 of U.P. Fundamental Rules while do so. In the appeal, no challenge has been thrown to Rule 21(b) of the Service Rules 2002, but it has been contended that the said Rule was not approved by the competent authority. Who is the competent authority, on being questioned by the Court, the learned counsel informed that it is the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. We have not been shown by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant any provision of Law requiring the Registrar to approve service rules of a registered Cooperative Society. At the same time, we have also not been shown any provision of Law which suggests that unless service rules of a registered Cooperative Society are approved by the Registrar, the same shall have no effect. In such view of the matter, there is nothing in the appeal at all. The same is liable to be and should be dismissed. We accordingly, dismiss the appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.