- (1.) This bunch of matters is being disposed of by this common order and facts are illustratively taken from SBCWP No.7404/2013 Shanker Lal vs. State & Ors. as well as SBCWP No.12152/2013 Umaid Singh vs. State & ors.
(2.) The controversy in hand is about the retirement age, whether it has to be 58 years or 60 years for the employees of respondent - Bikaner Dugdh Utapadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Bikaner, which is independently incorporated Cooperative Society governed by the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. The Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited is the apex body of all the Districts dairy units, which is also independently incorporated body.
(3.) This is the third round of litigation before this Court. The earlier rounds of litigation having been disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 23/12/2011 in a bunch of 68 matters led by Dairy Karamchari Union, Jodhpur vs. R.K.Trashal & Ors. by which the contempt petitions & writ petitions came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court headed by the then Chief Justice. 3. The Division Bench of this Court decided the controversy with the following observations:- "Coming to the question whether RCDF should consider the question of enhancement of age of superannuation or the respective Society, the RCDF is the Apex Society and the various Societies are signatories to the registration of the Apex Society under the Act of 2001. The "Member" has been defined in Section 2(p) of the Act of 2001, which means a person joining in the application for the registration of a Cooperative Society and a person admitted to membership after such registration in accordance with the Act of 2001 and the Rules and the bye laws and includes a nominal and an associate member. Representatives of the 39 Cooperative Societies were the signatories in the application for registration of Apex Society-RCDF. It is not disputed that RCDF has framed Regulations of 1980 and they have been adopted by various Societies. The State Government has power under section 123 of the Act of 2001 to prescribe by framing the Rules, service conditions of employees of the Society. In the absence of issuing statutory directions, the orders, which have been issued by the State Government, are also enforceable and they have the force of the law. The Government has issued order on 16.6.1990 to the effect that all the Unions (Cooperative Societies) shall adopt Model Service Rules, Cadre and Recruitment Rules, Standing Orders as suggested by RCDF. The order of the State Government was complied with by RCDF and other constituent Cooperative Societies and all Unions/Cooperative Societies had executed agreement with RCDF. The Model Agreement contains clause (3) which is similar to clause (12) of the order of State Government, which is quoted above. Thus, the Cooperatives Societies have agreed to follow all Service Rules and Conditions prescribed by the RCDF for the employees of the Societies signing the agreement. In view of the aforesaid directions of the State Government and the provisions contained in the Model Agreement signed by various Cooperative Societies and considering the fact that Service Regulations of 1980 framed by RCDF have been adopted by various Cooperative Societies and considering the fact that there should be uniformity with respect to the age of superannuation, it would be appropriate that RCDF be directed to consider the question of enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years. Resultantly, the impugned resolutions passed by the RCDF and Societies are hereby quashed and the RCDF is directed to consider the question of enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years in accordance with the discussion made in the order and thereafter, the decision be sent for adoption to the Cooperative Societies and at that time, they can have say to the extent permissible under the law. It is made clear that the RCDF cannot act arbitrarily and has to act in accordance with law and discussion made in the order and if it is found that RCDF or Societies have acted in arbitrary manner, stern action would be taken by this Court. In the contempt petitions, we have noted that appropriate considerations and factors have not been taken into consideration inspite of clear and categorical directions issued by this Court and irrelevant aspects have been taken into consideration. However, we accept the unconditional apology which has been tendered by the counsel appearing on behalf of the erring respondents, however, we warn them to be careful in future and not to act on irrelevant consideration and in violation of the observations/directions of this Court. The notices of contempt are discharged and contempt proceedings are dropped. Let the matter be reconsidered afresh within a period of two months from today. It was also submitted that certain incumbents, who were allowed to continue in service under the orders of this Court and Federation, have not been paid salary and they have been removed retrospectively. We direct that they cannot be deprived of their salary for the period for which they have rendered services. The respondents are bound to make payment of salary for the period for which they have rendered services. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the contempt petitions, special appeals and writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Kailash Chandra Joshi)J. (Arun Mishra)C.J.";