The Service Rules govern the retirement age, and decisions of the governing body cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The Appellant before this Court, a retired Executive Director of National Cooperative Union of India (hereinafter referred to as `NCUI.), has filed the present Appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4348/2003 titled S.G. Parashar Vs. UOI & Ors..

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant before this Court, while in service, had preferred a Writ Petition in the year 2003 claiming continuance of service up to the age of 60 years.

3. The Appellant at the relevant point of time was working as an Executive Director in the service of the Respondent Organization. The Appellant came up with the case before the Learned Single Judge stating that the Respondent Organization, though it is a Society registered under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, is fully in control of Government of India, and therefore, the recommendations made by the 5th Pay Commission relating to age of retirement of Central Government employees should be made applicable to the employees of Respondent No.1 Society also.

4. The Appellant further stated that an Office Memorandum was issued by the Secretary of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions dated 30.05.1998 regarding the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission in respect of date of retirement, and the Office Memorandum dated 13.05.1998 should also have been made applicable to the employees of the Respondent No.1 Society.

5. The Learned Single Judge after hearing Learned Counsel for the Parties and after careful consideration of the material on record has dismissed the Writ Petition. The following reliefs were prayed for before the Learned Single Judge:

"(a) Issue Writ of Mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ or directions thereby quashing the impugned decision dated 21.04.2003 and as a necessary consequence thereof for quashing the impugned office order dated 7.7.2003.

(b) Issue Writ of Mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ or directions directing the Respondent No.3 to implement the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission Report with regard to increase in age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years as has been done by the Central Government for its employees and has also been done by other organization/autonomous bodies similar to the Respondent No.3."

6. The order/judgment dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge as contained in Paragraphs 28 to 34 reads as under:

"FINDING AND ANALYSIS

28. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the parties.

29. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that some other employees of R3 similarly placed as the Petitioner herein had approached this Court for seeking similar relief. Vide judgment dated 12th September 2001 in C.W. No. 6565 of 2000 and C.W. No. 6142 of 1999, a Co-ordinate bench of this Court dismissed the writ petitions as being devoid of merits. The relevant portion has been reproduced below:

"8. It is crystal clear from the aforesaid resolution that NCUI did not approve the proposal for enhancement of the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. Thus, the request and the proposal of the NCCT for enhancement of the retirement age from 58 to 60 years was neither approved by NCUI nor by the Government of India.

9. I have already referred to rule 11 of the Service Rules governing the service conditions of the petitioners. The said rule indicates that approval of the Government of India is necessary for amending the Service Rules in the matter and for enhancement of retirement age. Said position is also clear from the various documents placed on record whereunder Government's approval had been sought for. It is thus clearly established that unless and until Government of India approves the proposal the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted that retirement age sta