- (1.) IN this writ petition petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 9/6/1995 (Annex.3), whereby, petitioner was retired compulsorily and further prayed that respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
(2.) INITIALLY this writ petition was dismissed for want of alternative remedy vide order dated 6/9/2001 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court against which the petitioner preferred special appeal before the Division Bench of this Court and Division Bench vide order dated 18/11/2003 quashed the order passed by learned Single Judge and remitted this case to Single Judge for deciding the matter afresh on merits. According to the facts of the case, petitioner- S.P.Sharma worked with the respondent bank for more than 20 years and in the year 1995 when he was working as Branch Secretary and was posted at Head Office of the Bank at Chittorgarh. He was informed vide letter dated 10/3/1992 that Cooperative Department has initiated a scheme known as `Golden Hand Shake' under which employees can offer voluntary retirement and in that event he will be given certain benefits, however, the petitioner did not opt for the said scheme. Again on 15/9/1994 another letter was given to the petitioner about the same scheme but petitioner did not opt for voluntary retirement due to his family circumstances. According to petitioner, on 15/5/1995 he was given threat by the respondents that if he will not opt for voluntary retirement scheme then he will be compulsorily retired. As per petitioner said threat was illegal and uncalled for because the present service is the only source of livelihood for petitioner and his family and in the year 1995 he was only 46 years old, therefore, it was not possible for him to get any alternate job. On 9/6/1995 an order was issued by the respondent Bank, whereby, petitioner was given compulsory retirement from service as per the so called Rules of the Bank framed in the year 1990. As per petitioner, there were two sets of service rules in the bank. The Rules of 1974 were made effective from 1/4/1974 and another set of Rules were framed in 1990. As per petitioner in the Rules of 1974 there is no provision for compulsory retirement, however, in the Rules of 1990 there is a provision for termination of service under Rule 20(a) and according to Rule 20(a) the discretion is left with the employer bank to give compulsory retirement to an employee after giving him three months notice in writing or payment of three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, if any employee has completed 20 years of service or 50 years of age whichever is earlier. As per petitioner, in the Rules of 1990 it is no where provided that these Rules are superseding the earlier Rules of 1974 so also the Rules of 1990 are also not approved by the competent authority nor framed under Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 therefore, obviously there is no provision in existence for compulsory retirement of an employee in the respondent bank but without any legal provision the order of compulsory retirement from service was passed which is totally baseless and not in consonance with the provisions of any valid Rules. Further it is submitted that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed only to harass or victimize the petitioner because first of all petitioner was offered to seek voluntary retirement under `Golden Handshake' Scheme but petitioner refused to accept the said scheme then with malafide reasons the order of compulsory retirement was issued in violation of Rules and existing provisions of service Rules of the Bank. It is further submitted that Rules of 1990 are not approved so also these Rules have not been framed under Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966, therefore, the order of compulsory retirement of petitioner is without jurisdiction, therefore, deserves to be quashed.
(3.) . Learned counsel for the petitioner S.P.Sharma further argued that order of compulsory retirement amounts to punishment if it is passed without any provision of law, therefore, without any opportunity of hearing or holding any proper inquiry, said order cannot be sustained. The petitioner was permanent employee of the respondent bank and his services cannot be dispensed with contrary to the provisions of Rules, therefore, petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service and the order of compulsory retirement dated 9/6/1995 (Annex.3) deserves to be set aside. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that there is a provision under the Rules of 1990, and those Rules are based upon model rules circulated by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 41 of the Rules of 1966. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that every employer has a right to pass an order of compulsory retirement under the Rules if employee becomes deadwood for service and such power can be exercised by the respondent bank as per Rule 20 (a) of the Rules of 1990, therefore, contention of petitioner that order of compulsory retirement is not in consonance with the provisions of Rules is untenable. It is further submitted that the Rules of 1990 were framed as per model Rules framed under Rule 41 by the Registrar, Cooperative Department within its power under Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 and order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent bank is based upon the recommendation of the committee constituted after screening the entire service record of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Golden Handshake scheme was circulated to all the employees and there is no malice against any employee nor any threat was given to petitioner S.P.Sharma for seeking voluntary retirement, therefore, all allegations against the respondent are unfounded. It is further submitted that the respondent bank is entitled to give voluntary retirement to an employee, who has outlived his utility and such order cannot be termed as punishment because after assessing the service record of employee, the decision was taken by the committee duly constituted by the Administrator. It is further submitted in reply that upon screening the service record of petitioner it is found that petitioner has outlived his utility and petitioner became deadwood. So also his work was deteriorating, therefore, on the basis of recommendation of committee it was felt necessary by the respondent bank to give compulsory retirement to Shri S.P.Sharma,, thus no illegality is committed by the respondent Bank. ;