The court affirmed that the discretion to extend superannuation age lies with the employer, considering the institution's interests and financial health, without constituting discrimination.

ORDER :

Sameer Jain, J.

1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the present bunch of petitions, involving common questions of fact and law, are jointly taken up for final disposal. For the purpose of recording arguments and/or submissions, the lead file is taken as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6973/2018 titled as Gulzari Lal vs. State of Rajasthan.

2. By way of the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the following prayers are sought, as reproduced herein-under:-

“(i) the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and this Hon’ble Court may pleased be issue a writ, order or direction in the nature whereof.

(ii) the respondent bank be directed to raise the superannuation age of the petitioner in order to bring at par with the similarly situated persons in the Bank itself as well as in other Cooperative Bank and Autonomous bodies of the State.

(iii) by an appropriate writ order or direction this Hon’ble Court may kindly quash and set aside the superannuation date of the petitioner i.e. 31.03.2016 as the petitioner has been retired by the respondent bank on this date. While extending the superannuation age up to 60 years and consequential benefits may also be allowed accordingly to the petitioner.

(iv) by an appropriate writ order or direction the respondent bank may kindly be directed to be deemed to have join the duty after 31.03.2016, because the respondent bank has already allowed other similarly employees to continue in the bank up to superannuation age of 60 years and all consequential benefit may also kindly be allowed to petitioner accordingly.

(v) Any other appropriate order, direction or relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts of the circumstance of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner in the larger interest of equity justice and law pending the present Writ Petition.”

3. Concisely noted, the cause and controversy in the present bunch of petitions arose when the petitioner-employees, after having attained the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years, applied for re-employment before the respondent-employer for a period of 2 years; however, the said application(s) for re- employment were rejected and as a result, the petitioner- employees superannuated at the age of 58 years sans further re- employment till the age of 60 years.

4. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Himanshu Jain, submitted that by way of the instant petition, a challenge has been raised against the validity and legality of the orders dated 27.03.2018 (23.08.2018) and 31.03.2018, whereby the petitioners were superannuated upon attaining the age of 58 years.

5. At the outset, prior to advancing arguments on merits, Mr. Jain appraised the Court regarding the material fact of an interim order having been passed by this Court during the tenure of the present petition, whereby vide order dated 03.04.2018, this Court had extended interim indulgence in favour of the petitioners, whilst staying the effect and operation of the order impugned dated 27.03.2018. However, despite the said order dated 03.04.2018 being in currency sans any appeal filed against the same, the respondent-Bank terminated the services of the petitioners after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years.

6. For advancing arguments on merits, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper vide order dated 30.04.1985. Subsequently, looking to the petitioners unblemished service record, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Manager (Grade-D) vide order dated 30.11.2011. In this background, learned counsel averred that initially the age of superannuation for the bank employees in the respondent-Bank was earmarked as 55 years, which was subsequently increased to 58 and 60 years. In this regard, the Registrar-Co-operative Societies issued directions for the submission of a proposal