VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners, in the instant writ application, questioning the vires of Rule 39(1) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2003', for short), have prayed for the following reliefs: - ''a) The respondents may be directed to produce the relevant record before this Hon'ble Court. b) Rule 39(1) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Rules, 2003 may kindly be declared ultra -vires and unconstitutional and may kindly be struck down. c) The impugned orders dated 3.5.2012, 19.9.2008, 31.8.2009, 1.9.2009 and 1.5.2012 may kindly be quashed and set aside. d) It may kindly be declared and directed that in the absence of any rules framed by the State Government under section 123 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 prescribing the service conditions of the employees of societies governed by the Act of 2001 respondent No.3 alone is competent to regulate, prescribe and amend the service conditions of its employees. e) The respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to act in accordance with the decisions taken and orders/communications issued by the competent authorities of respondent No.3 on 29.9.2008 and 27.4.2012 regarding enhancement of the age of superannuation of the employees from 58 years to 60 years and directing that the employees shall not be retired at the age of 58 years. f) Any adverse orders passed or action taken to the prejudice of the petitioners during pendency of the writ petition may be declared ultra vires and unconstitutional and may be quashed and set aside with consequential benefits to petitioners. g) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may kindly be declared just and proper may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners. ''
(2.) BRIEFLY , the essential material facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the controversy are: That the petitioners are employees of Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Jaipur (respondent number 3), an instrumentality of the Government being a Central Society as defined under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter reference to as 'the Act of 2001', for short). The grievances of the petitioners is for not according them the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. On 16th June, 1990, the Government issued an order directing all the Milk Cooperative Societies to adopt the service rules of Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation (RCDF, for short). The State Government amending the Rajasthan Service Rules vide notification dated 24th May, 2004, enhanced the retirement age of government employees from 58 years to 60 years. The benefit was also extended to the teachers/employees of Government Aided Educational Institutions vide notification dated 30th June, 2004. Similarly, by a circular dated 26th August, 2008, the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation i.e. the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years, to the employees of Corporations, Boards and Companies under the purview of Bureau of Public Enterprises, was accorded.
(3.) THE State Government vide order dated 31st of August, 2009 directing the RCDF to withdraw its order dated 19th September, 2008; called upon the RCDF and all other District Unions, to take decision regarding enhancement of retirement age in accordance with the criteria laid down in the order dated 17th September, 2008 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. As a consequence thereof, the RCDF as well as the respondent No.3, withdrew the orders enhancing the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years vide order dated 1st September, 2009. The order dated 17th September, 2008 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Rule 39(4) of the Rules of 2003 provided criteria for enhancement of retirement age, which reads thus: - ''(a) Societies having no Government shareholding or interest were left free to take their own decision. (b) Societies in which Government shareholding and Government interest was involved were permitted to enhance the retirement age provided that they had not earned loss in the three preceding financial years and the number of their existing employees was not in excess of the sanctioned staff strength. '' ;