- (1.) HEARD Sri Manish Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, since pleadings are complete, the Court has proceeded to decide this matter finally under the Rules of this Court at this stage. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are that petitioner was working as Senior AssistantcumAccountant in Ganna Kisan Sansthan Training Centre, Gorakhpur and completed 58 years of age in August, 2011. The Assistant Director, Ganna Kisan Sansthan, Gorakhpur, resondent no. 3, vide order dated 26.03.2011 communicated the petitioner that in view of Para 7.7 of Ganna Vikas Sansthan Sewa Niyamawali he would retire on 31.08.2011, i.e., on completion of age of superannuation, i.e., 58 years. The claim of petitioner is that he was entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years in view of the fact that Governing Council has already resolved to extend the age of retirement upto 60 years and power to amend the rule is vested with Governing Council of U.P. Ganna Kisan Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as the "Sansthan"). Hence the petitioner could not have been retired on attaining the age of 58 years only on the ground that this resolution of Governing Council was not approved by State Government vide order dated 31.12.2008. It is in these circumstances the Government Order dated 31.12.2008 declining to grant approval extending age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years to employees of Sansthan has also been assailed.
(3.) A preliminary objection was raised that a writ petition would not lie in the matter of dispute relating to Sansthan which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. This Court finds answer to this query in a Full Bench judgment in Radhey Shyam Rai Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2005(3) UPLBEC 2549 wherein U.P. Ganna Kisan Sansthan has been held an instrumentality of State and, therefore, a "State" within Article 12 of the Constitution and hence a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable. In para 40 of the judgment the Full Bench has concluded as under: "40. In the premise we hold, as stated above, that Ganna Kisan Sansthan is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and a Writ in the nature of certiorari is maintainable against the Sansthan under Article 226 of the Constitution." In view thereof, it cannot be said that writ petition in question is not maintainable. I hold accordingly.;