Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) IN all these eight petitions, the petitioners who are the employees of the respondent Alwar Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the said Society) have challenged the action of the said respondent, in not enhancing the age of superannuation of the petitioners from 58 years to 60 years, in view of the circular dated 17.09.2008 issued by the respondent Registrar, Rajasthan Co -operative Societies, Government of Rajasthan and have further prayed to continue the petitioners in service with all consequential benefits. The Coordinate Bench in some of the matters like S.B.C.W.P. No. 4368/2014 had passed the ex -parte order that if the petitioners eventually succeed, the respondents shall be liable to pay the petitioners salary, emoluments, etc. for the period during which they would be held entitled to continue in service. The Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 5231/2014 by way of ex -parte ad -interim order had directed that the petitioners shall not be retired on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.03.2014 and shall be continued in service subject to final order. In some of the matters like S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8253/2014 and 8838/2014, the Court had directed the respondents to continue the concerned petitioners in service, while issuing the notices to the respondents.
(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the facts of the writ petition No. 4368/2014 are taken into consideration for deciding all the petitions. The case of the petitioners in nutshell is that they were the employees of the respondent society and were retired from service as per the order dated 10.12.2012, at Annexure -1. According to the petitioners, the respondent Nos. 2 & 5 had passed the resolutions in compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court that the age of superannuation of their employees shall be enhanced from 58 to 60 years, and had forwarded the said proposal to the respondent No. 3 for his approval. However the respondent No. 3 did not grant the approval on the ground that the respondent No. 5 Society had accumulated losses of Rs. 972.98 lacs. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order had filed the writ petitions being No. 12865/2013 and others, which came to be disposed of by the High Court vide the order dated 24.02.2014, in which the respondent No. 3 was directed to pass appropriate orders on the proposal sent by the respondent No. 5 Society within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The respondent No. 3 accordingly passed the order of 27.03.2014 by holding that it was not in the interest of the society to enhance the age of superannuation, as the society had accumulated the loss of Rs. 972.98 lacs. Hence the petitioners have filed the present petitions.
(3.) HOWEVER , the respondent No. 5 in its reply has contended that the petitioners having attained the age of superannuation have already retired and no cause of action had survived thereafter in the present petitions. It has been further contended that there being accumulated losses, the respondent No. 3 Registrar, did not grant the proposal of the respondent No. 5 to increase the age of superannuation and hence the respondent No. 5 in its meeting held on 04.06.2014 had decided to keep age of superannuation at 58 years only.;