SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for a direction to the respondent Rajsamand District Cooperative Land Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) for enhancing the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years pursuant to a order/notification/circular dated 17.9.2008 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, State of Rajasthan. It is asserted that as per the notification, such cooperative societies, which were running in net profits for the preceding three years and the sanctioned staff strength was not exceeded, were required to conduct an exercise for increasing the retirement age of their employees from 58 years to 60 years.
(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court contending that his employer, being the Rajsamand District Cooperative Land Development Bank was also running in net profits for the three years preceding to the order dated 17.9.2008 and was also running well below the sanctioned staff strength and thus, it resolved to increase the retirement age of its employees to 60 years in compliance of the above circular. The resolution was thereafter forwarded to the Registrar for approval in accordance with the aforesaid circular dated 17.9.2008. The petitioner has set up a case that there was no requirement for the Bank to seek approval of the Registrar because as per Clause 2(30 of the order dated 17.9.2008, the societies, which were running in net profits for three continuous preceding years, vide order dated 17.9.2008, were authorised to take a decision for increasing the retirement age of their employees from 58 years to 60 years at their own level. But despite that, the Bank forwarded its resolution to the Registrar along with the Profit and Loss Account of the Bank for the preceding three years by communication dated 22.12.2008. The Assistant Registrar also appended his note to the proceedings expressing his consent with the resolution. However, on 12.2.2009, the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies remanded the matter back to the Assistant Registrar with the direction to submit his detailed comments along with the proposal. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioners date of birth is 15.2.1951 and thus, he was to attain the unaltered superannuation age of 58 years by the end of February 2009. The Assistant Registrar in turn forwarded his comments to the Joint Registrar by letter dated 19.2.2009. In para No. 9 of the comments, it was mentioned that the Bank was in losses of Rs. 126.96 lacs in the year 2007-08 but if accumulated profits were taken into account, then the Banks fund showed net profit of Rs. 26.78 lacs in the year 2007-08 also. Accordingly, it was recommended to increase the retirement age of the employees from 58 years to 60 years. The petitioner has set up a case that no action was taken pursuant to the said recommendations of the Assistant Registrar and accordingly the petitioner faced imminent retirement at 58 years despite his right to continue in service till 60 years, upon which, he rushed to this Court by way of the instant writ petition. It is relevant to note here that the record of the stay application is not tagged with the file but it appears that an interim stay order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 25.2.2009. However, the interim order was finally vacated on 9.3.2009 where after, the petitioner admittedly retired from service.
(3.) The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition, wherein the copies of a criminal case instituted against the petitioner for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are annexed. It is mentioned in the reply that the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court regarding his re-induction in service. As a matter of fact, pursuant to his retirement, the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis in accordance with the procedure adopted by the Society to re-employ the retired officers on fixed payment basis. The petitioner was re-employed through a contract on a fixed salary of Rs. 7000/- per month, but thereafter, his services were terminated on 4.12.2010 on account of his remaining will fully absent from duty without any information. The petitioner has along with an additional affidavit placed on record a copy of the order dated 30.10.2009 issued by the bank as per which the petitioner, who had been suspended on 16.11.2002 on account of registration of a criminal case was reinstated in service. Another order dated 21.7.2010 issued by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, whereby the proposal sent by the bank to increase the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years was accepted, has also been placed on record with the additional affidavit.;