Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) Both the petitions involved similar issues and hence were heard together and are being decided simultaneously by way of this common order.
(2.) In both the petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 2/9/2013 issued by the respondents retiring the petitioners and have sought direction against the respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioners from 58 to 60 years with all consequential benefits.
(3.) The facts in nutshell are that the petitioners were the employees of the respondent No.4 - Kota Zila Dughadh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Milk Society'). According to the petitioners, their service conditions are similar to the employees of the State Government, and therefore, should be governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules ,1951. Prior to the year 2004, the age of superannuation as per Rajasthan Service Rules was 58 years, which has been increased to 60 years as per the notification dated 24/5/2004. The respondent-Registrar therefore exercising the powers under Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), framed under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), had issued the order dated 17/9/2008, directing the Cooperative Societies to take decision for the enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, if the respective society had not incurred the loss in the preceding three years and if the strength of the employees did not exceed the sanctioned staff. It is the further case of the petitioners that accordingly the respondent No.5 RCDF which was the governing body of the respondent Milk Society had issued the order dated 19/6/2013 deciding to increase the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years for its employees with effect from 12/6/2013. According to the petitioners though the respondent Milk Society had not incurred loss in the preceding three years and though the strength of the existing staff did not exceed the sanctioned staff, the respondent/society in violation of the said Circular dated 17/9/2008 issued by the respondent Registrar, suddenly issued the order dated 2/9/2013 retiring the petitioners on the ground of having reached the age of superannuation at 58 years. Though the petitioners had made the representation to the respondents for increasing the age of superannuation, the same was not responded to and hence they had preferred the writ petition being No.5931 of 2014 before this Court which petition came to be disposed of on 26th May, 2014, whereby the respondents were directed to decide the representations of the petitioners and to convey the said decision to the petitioners. The petitioners' representation however was turned down by the respondents vide order dated 28/5/2014 retiring the petitioner Jagdish Gupta with effect from 31/5/2014. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioners have filed the present petitions.;