Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) -The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to continue in service till 31.7.2006, i.e., when he attains the age of 60 years and to give all consequential benefits accruing thereon.
(2.) THE facts in brief as disclosed in the writ petition are that the petitioner was working as Senior Branch Manager in the office of Banda District Co-operative Bank, Banda. Initially, he was appointed as Clerk in District Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank"), Branch Office Karvi, district Banda on 6th October, 1966, prior to the enforcement of U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "1975 Regulations"). A dispute arose between the employees of various District Cooperative Banks and the Bank wherein a settlement/ agreement was entered into on 22.2.1966 which stipulated that the age of superannuation of the Bank's employees would be 60 years. THE grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are erroneously retiring him on 31.7.2004 on attaining the age of 58 years which is in contravention of the settlement dated 22.2.1966. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit stating that in terms of the settlement dated 12.12.1965 (Annexure CA-3) the age of retirement of the employees of the Bank was 58 years. Further there was an industrial dispute raised by the U. P. Bank Employees Union which was referred for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal III, Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 53 of 1963, wherein 50 Cooperative Banks were parties, which involved dispute with respect to age of retirement as well. The Bank in question was party in the said adjudication case. The learned Tribunal gave its award on 25.6.1971 which was published by the State Government on 17.7.1971. The said award is commonly known as "Joshi Award" wherein also the age of retirement of employees was held to be 58 years. In Para 7 of the counter-affidavit it is denied that there was any settlement arrived between the Bank and the employees on 22.2.1966 providing age of retirement other than 58 years. On the contrary, the settlement executed by the Bank was dated 12.12.1965 wherein the age of retirement was 58 years and therefore, the petitioner has rightly been retired on attaining the age of 58 years. Sri H. R. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the averments made in the writ petition and Joshi Award, the petitioner was entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years. He also placed reliance on Division Bench judgments in Allahabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Lalji Srivastava, (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1701 : 1996 (1) AWC 247 ; Ram Swarup Srivastava v. Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Allahabad and another, 2005 (2) ESC 1215 : 2005 (5) AWC 4835 and a single Judge judgment in Writ Petition No. 16365 of 2004, Sri Dhyan Chand Gupta v. District Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another, decided on 25.5.2005.
(3.) WE have heard Sri H. R. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. N. Misra, appearing for respondents and perused the record. It is not disputed between the parties that if there existed any contract executed between the petitioner and the respondent Bank prior to enforcement of 1975 Regulations, whereunder the petitioner is entitled to continue beyond 58 years of age, he would be entitled to avail the same and Regulation 24 of 1975 Regulations would not curtail his age of superannuation. It is also not disputed between the parties that in case the matter is governed by Regulation 24, then he would not be entitled to continue beyond 58 years.;