BELA M.TRIVEDI, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction against the respondents to enhance the superannuation age of the petitioners upto 60 years, and accordingly to pay all consequential benefits.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Shobhit Vyas for the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 was working as the Compositor, and the petitioner No.2 was working as the Assistant Machine Operator with the respondent No.3 -State Cooperative Press Ltd., and both were to retire on 30th June, 2014 on attaining the age of superannuation. He further submitted that the respondent No.2 -Registrar had issued a Circular dated 17/9/2008 -Annexure -13, directing all the Cooperative Societies including the respondent No.3 to increase the age of superannuation from 58 to 60, if they had made profits in the last three years, and if the strength of existing employees did not exceed the sanctioned strength, however the respondent No.3 has not taken any decision on the said Circular, and was ought to retire the petitioners on their attaining the age of superannuation. He further submitted that the petitioners having approached this Court, they were protected vide the order dated 20/6/2014 by directing the respondents society to continue the petitioners in service.
(3.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel Mr. A.K. Pareek for the respondent No.3, placing reliance on the reply filed by him, submitted that the petition against the respondent No.3 was not maintainable, the respondent No.3 being not the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that though the respondent No.3 has shown profits in the annual report, the auditors had raised the objection to the effect that the said profit was wrongly shown and in fact the respondent No.3 was running into loss. The learned counsel thereafter has submitted that the petitioners are also not having knowledge of the latest technology in printing, and therefore also office has not desirous to continue them after they having reached the age of superannuation. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the documents on record, it appears that the petitioners have relied upon the Circular dated 17/9/2008 issued by the respondent No.2 -Registrar advising all cooperative societies to enhance the age of superannuation of their employees from 58 years to 60 years. However, on the close reading of the said Circular, it appears that the said circular was only a directory in nature. There was no mandatory direction given in the said Circular by the Registrar to the Cooperative Societies to increase the age of superannuation from 58 to 60. As per the Clause 2 of the said Circular, the direction was given to the effect that such cooperative societies, who are making profits in the last three years and whose strength of the existing employees does not exceed the sanctioned strength, may take decision considering the interest of the society to increase the age of superannuation from 58 to 60. Apart from the fact that such direction contained in the said Circular was not mandatory, and it was only directory in nature, as such the petitioners could not be said to have any legal or fundamental right to compel the respondent No.3 to enhance the age of superannuation upto 60. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also failed to point out any legal or fundamental right to remain in service of the respondent No.3 upto the age of 60 years, though admittedly the age of superannuation as per the existing Rules is only 58 years.;