Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have instituted this joint writ application assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 26th March, 2010, terminating their deputation in Primary Land Development Banks, and calling upon them to join duty in Rajasthan Urban Cooperative Bank Limited on 1st April, 2010. Simultaneously, order dated 31st March, 2010, has also been assailed whereby the petitioners have been accorded compulsory retirement from services in the Bank interest; and therefore, have approached this Court praying for the following relief(s): - - "(i) By issuing writ of mandamus, the order dated 31.3.2010 (Annex. 1) may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) By issuing writ of mandamus the order dated 26.3.2010 (Annex. 2) terminating deputation of the petitioners from primary banks may kindly be quashed and set aside; (iii) The respondent -bank may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioners in service or in alternate a direction may kindly be issued for transferring services of the petitioners to the primary banks in the State of Rajasthan. (iv) The Hon'ble Court may kindly pass such other order or direction, which it may deem just, proper and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (v) Costs throughout be also ordered to be awarded to the petitioners."
(2.) BRIEFLY , the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein are that the petitioners while working as employees of the Rajasthan Urban Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent -Bank', for short), were sent on deputation for the respondent -Bank incurred losses and the Reserve Bank of India vide order dated 30th August, 2005, called upon it to close down the business of the Bank. However, its functions were revived in the year 2009. The details of the petitioners with reference to their date of appointment and designation, are as under: - - By communication dated 17th September, 2008, the petitioners were called upon to exercise their option to go on deputation to serve for Primary Banks. On 30th September, 2008, the Managing Director of the respondent -Bank, under the instructions of the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Government of Rajasthan, issued an order sending the petitioners on deputation to different Primary Banks. In view of the compliance of the regulatory instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the respondent -Bank was allowed to resume its banking business on 19th December, 2009. As a consequence of change in the Management of the respondent -Bank, the Board of Directors formulated a Scheme for voluntary retirement i.e. 'Golden Handshake Scheme', and called upon the petitioners to opt for voluntary retirement under the said Scheme. However, the petitioners did not find the Scheme suitable to their interest, and therefore, they did not opt for the same. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that despite availability of the vacancies on different posts and the need of employees, who would be required by 2014, along with the actual occupancy of the posts was informed by the respondent -Bank to the State Government on 21st October, 2009. Be that as it may, the Board of Directors of the respondent -Bank while deciding to terminate the deputation of the petitioners on 26th March, 2010 and calling upon them to report for duty on termination of their repatriation; to their dismay, served them with the orders of compulsory retirement made on 31st March, 2010. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 26th April, 2010, for want of jurisdiction.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, asserted that the action of the respondent -Bank in terminating the services of the petitioners in exercise of the powers under Rule 15 of the Urban Cooperative Banks, Employees Service Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2006', for short), is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power. According to the learned counsel, the case of the petitioners did not fall within the ambit of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2005, which contemplates compulsory retirement only in the event the Board of Directors is satisfied that the concerned employee be retired compulsorily for his indolence or doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in due performance of official duties, and has lost his utility.;