Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. - (1.) As these intra court appeals arise out of the same impugned order dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Single Bench, they are being decided by this judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 529/2015 which has been preferred by the appellant Bank assailing the judgment of the Single Bench setting aside the compulsorily retirement/retirement of respondents while the respondents have also filed Special Appeals No. 547/2015, 648/2015, 649/2015, 650/2015, 651/2015 & 652/2015 against the order of the Single Bench to the extent of denying them back wages while setting aside the orders of compulsory retirement.
(2.) The writ petitioners/respondents herein were employees of the Rajasthan Urban Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') which is a registered cooperative society under the provisions of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001'). The Bank, which had come into operation in the year 1961, had been functioning until 30.08.2005 whereon the Reserve Bank of India imposed a ban on the Bank for carrying out business activities as it had been incurring losses. In the meantime, the respondents, who were working in the Bank, were called upon to exercise their option to go on deputation to serve other primary banks vide order dated 17.09.2008. The respondents, having exercised their option, were sent on deputation to various primary banks on 30.09.2008. However, the Reserve Bank of India permitted the appellant Bank to commence business operations vide order dated 12.10.2009. Consequently, vide order dated 26.03.2010, the Board of Directors of the Bank decided to terminate the deputation of the respondents with effect from 31.03.2010. The respondents namely, Ajay Kumar Katewa (Clerk), Shiv Dayal Sharma (Assistant Cashier), Shriram Jat (Clerk), Ramavtar Sharma (Chief Cashier), Bhagirath Ram (Clerk), Rajeshwar Lal (Clerk), Jogendra Mandal (Peon), Sanjay Dadhich (Clerk) were compulsorily retired under Rule 15 of the Rules of 2006, while Ram Lal (Peon) and Subhash Chand Saxena (Chief Cashier) were retired under Rule 14 of the Rules 2006, after paying 3 months' salary in lieu of three months' previous notice. An order of compulsory retirement/retirement of the respondents/writ petitioners was passed. The respondents challenged the order of compulsory retirement by preferring an appeal before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan which was dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2010 as it was not maintainable under Rule 17 which provides for appeal against disciplinary action for misconduct.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant -Bank, while assailing the order of the Single Bench contended that the appellant -Bank is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable and the findings of the Single Bench are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Federal Bank Limited v/s. Sagar Thomas [ : (2003) 10 SCC 733/AIR 2003 (SC) 4325] and S.S. Rana v/s. Registrar, Co -operative Societies [ : (2006) 11 SCC 634]. He has further contended that the respondents had been retired/compulsorily retired under Rule 14 & 15 of the Urban Cooperative Bank Employees Service Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2006') and paid outstanding dues towards gratuity and leave encashment. The orders for retirement/compulsory retirement have been passed by the Board of Directors after due deliberation in compliance with the Rules 14 & 15 of the Rules of 2006 as the respondents had lost their utility to the Bank. It is also submitted that the service record of each of the respondents/writ petitioners was carefully examined in consultation with the legal advisers as well as banking experts before arriving at the decision to retire/compulsorily retire the respondents while keeping in view the poor financial status of the Bank. It is further submitted that the judicial review in an order of compulsory retirement is extremely limited and the Single Bench has erred in interfering with the orders of compulsory retirement which had been passed in conformity with the Rules. It is also contended that the dispute between appellant bank and the respondents was referable to Arbitration as stipulated in Sec. 58 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act 2001.;