- (1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 7/11/2013 passed by the respondent No.3, and further seeking extension of superannuation age of the petitioner upto 60 years.
(2.) As per the case of the petitioner, he was appointed by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 10/8/1987. According to him, the respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order dated 7/11/2013, retiring him from services with effect from 30/9/2014, in violation of the Circular dated 17/9/2008 issued by the respondent No.2, Registrar, inasmuch as the petitioner was entitled to be continued upto the age of 60 years and not 58 years. It is also the case of the pettioner that as per the said circular of the respondent No.2 issued under Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003, the resopndent No.3-Society was required to enhance the age of superannuation of its employees upto 60 years, and therefoer the petitioner had right to be continued in the service upto the age of 60 years.
(3.) It appears that the Coordinate Bench while issuing the notices to the respondents on 30/9/2014 had passed the exparte ad-interim order directing inter-alia that the petitioner shall not be retired from service and shall be allowed to continue till attaining the age of 60 years or subject to any other order that may be passed by the Court in the present petition. Accordingly, the petitioner appears to have been continued in service even after his having attaining the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years. The respondent No.3 has resisted the petition by filing the reply contending inter-alia that the circular dated 17/9/2008 of the respondent No.2 was considered by the Board of Directors of the respondent No.3 in its meeting dated 20/7/2011, and it was resolved in the said meeting that since the respondent No.3-Sangh was running into losses, it was not in the interest of the Sangh to increase the age of superannuation. It is also contended that the petitioner has no right to be continued in the services of the respondent No.3 after the age of superannuation and has prayed to dismiss the petition.;