Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - (1.) ALL the above writ petitions shall stand disposed of by this common order as the issue involved is identical. For convenience, the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1180/2015.
(2.) THE purpose of filing the writ petition is to allow the petitioner to continue in service and enhance the age of superannuation of the employees of respondent -bank from 58 to 60 years with a further prayer to set aside the resolution dated 13.10.2014 whereby the age of superannuation has been reduced from 60 to 58 years. The petitioner is the employee of Sri Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited and was appointed on 04.03.1982. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur while exercising the powers under Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003 issued a notification dated 17.09.2008 allowing all those cooperative societies who had a share of the State Government in its capital to increase the age of superannuation of its' employees by two different ways. In case of a cooperative society running in profit for the last three financial years with its' strength of the employees being less than the sanctioned strength, the Managing Board of the cooperative society was at liberty to enhance the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 to 60 years. In case, the cooperative society was running in loss in any year during the last three financial years and the working strength of the employees was more than the sanctioned strength, the proposal/resolution so drawn by the Managing Board for enhancement of the age of superannuation of its employees was required to be approved by the Officer Authorized by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur. In pursuance to the above notification, the respondent Bank vide its' resolution dated 08.11.2008 enhanced the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 to 60 years. Accordingly, an order dated 10.12.2008 adopting the resolution was also passed. Subsequently, the operation of the above mentioned order dated 10.12.2008 was stayed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the matter was sent for rescinding of the same to the Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur. The tribunal vide its Order dated 27.11.2009 set aside the decision of the respondent bank dated 10.12.2008. The same was challenged before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7159/2010. The learned Single Bench vide Order dated 11.01.2011 set aside the Order dated 27.11.2009 passed by the tribunal and remitted the matter back to the tribunal for afresh decision after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the said writ petition. Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the appeal vide Order dated 11.08.2011 and upheld the decision of the respondent -bank for enhancement of the age of superannuation. The same was challenged by the respondent -bank by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8333/2011 which was dismissed as infructuous vide Order dated 23.04.2014 as in the meanwhile, the respondent bank had passed another resolution dated 19.05.2011 enhancing the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 to 60 years. The operation of the said resolution also was stayed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, against which S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6960/2011 titled as "Rajasthan Cooperative Bank Employees Union, Ganganagar Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors." was filed. By an interim order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the learned Single Bench, the employees of the bank were allowed to continue until they attained the age of 60 years. The said writ petition was ultimately allowed vide Order dated 21.01.2015 directing the respondent -bank to act upon the resolution enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years. During the pendency of the above writ petition, another resolution dated 13.10.2014 has been passed for reducing the age of retirement of its employees from 60 years to 58 years. The present writ petition has, therefore, been filed challenging the resolution dated 13.10.2014. It is further contended that as per the resolution of the respondent -bank dated 08.11.2008, the increase in the age of retirement was only a one time measure and thereafter, the resolution passed by the society to enhance the age could not have been recalled.
(3.) REPLY has been filed on behalf of the respondent -State. One of the preliminary objections raised in the reply is that the petitioner has approached this Court without availing the alternative remedy available to him. It was denied that the bank was in profit for the financial year 2013 -14 and it was further stated that the same not being in profit for the last three consecutive years, the bank has right to reduce the age of superannuation of its employee to 58 years as per the circulars issued by the Registrar. The earlier circulars pertain to the year when the bank was in profit and therefore, it cannot restrict the powers of the bank to take a fresh decision reducing the age in accordance with law. The impugned resolution has been passed in the general house which is supreme.;