Back
2004 Supreme(Raj) 960
Rajasthan High Court
Honble SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J.
Prasann Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Raj. Cooperative Dairy Federation and Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3710 of 2004
Decided On : October 01, 2004
Vijay Mehta, for Petitioners D.K. Parihar, for Respondent No. 2 M.R. Singhvi, for Respondent No. 1
Headnote:Service Matter – Reducing retirement age from 60 years to 58 years – Resolution that the age limit for direct recruitment and retirement/superannuation shall be the same as applicable to the employees of Rajasthan Government, as amended from time to time and the resolution was notified through office order – State Govt. authorised Board of Directors to make appropriate decision regarding the age of superannuation of its employees – Held – Board of Directors of RCDF considered the matter and decided to keep the retirement age in RCDF as 58 years in place of 60 years – This decision cannot be said to be capricious, arbitrary, malafide, unfair, unreasonable and irrational. (Paras 19 to 22)
The State Government through Circular Annex.R/1 dated 29.05.2004 authorized Board of Directors of each PSU to make appropriate decision regarding the age of superannuation of its employees and thereafter, Board of Directors of RCDF considered the matter and vide Resolution No. 84(1) dated 24.08.2004, it decided to keep the retirement age in RCDF as 58 years in place of 60 years and in compliance of the said decision of the Board of Directors of RCDF vide Resolution No. 84(1) dated 24.08.2004, through impugned order Annex.4 dated 25.8.2004, the age of retirement/superannuation in RCDF was kept as 58 years with immediate effect in place of 60 years. The decision of the RCDF keeping the retirement age of its employees as 58 years in place of 60 years cannot be said to be capricious, arbitrary, malafide, unfair, unreasonable and irrational. It was within the competence of RCDF to keep the retirement age of its employees as 58 years in place of 60 years. It cannot be said that in reducing the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years, the RCDF acted arbitrarily or irrationally. (Para 20)
(2). The case of the petitioner as putforward by him in this writ petition is as follows:
The petitioner was appointed in the respondent Cooperative Institution on the post of Clerk on 13.11.1969 and now he has retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years and at that time, he was holding the post of Senior Cashier in the office of the respondent No. 2 Managing Director, Uttariya Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Bikaner (for short ``the Sangh).
According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 RCDF is a Cooperative Federation of milk producing cooperative societies of the State of Rajasthan and is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondent No. 2 Sangh is the part of the respondent No. 1 RCDF.
The further case of the petitioner is that the service conditions of the petitioner and the employees of the respondent No. 2 Sangh are governed by the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Employees (Non-workman) Service Regulations 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Regulations of 1980) framed by the respondent No. 1 RCDF and by the resolutions adopted by the respondent No. 1 RCDF from time to time.
The further case of the petitioner is that vide Resolution No. 52 dated 11.4.1985, the respondent No. 1 RCDF resolved that the age limit for direct recruitment and retirement/superannuation shall be the same as applicable to the employees of Rajasthan Government, as amended from time to time and that Resolution was notified through Office Order dated 6.8.1985, a copy of which is marked as Annex.1.
The further case of the petitioner is that the State of Rajasthan vide notification dated 24.5.2004 (Annex.2) enhanced the age of retirement of its employees from 58 years to 60 years and in pursuance of the said Notification of the State Government Annex.2 dated 24.5.2004, the respondent No. 1 RCDF vide order dated 31.5.2004 (Annex.3) also enhanced the age of retirement of its employees from 58 years to 60 years.
The further case of the petitioner is that indisregard of the order of the State Government Annex.2 dated 24.5.2004 and despite Resolution No. 52 dated 11.4.1985, which was notified through order Annex.1 dated 6.8.1985, that age of retirement of the employees of respondent No. 1 RCDF shall be the same as that of the employees of the State Government, the respondent No. 1 RCDF issued another order Annex.4 dated 25.8.2004 by which the age of retirement/superannuation in RCDF was kept as 58 years with immediate effect in place of 60 years in partial modification to RCDF Order dated 31.5.2004 (Annex.3).
In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order Annex.4 dated 25.8.2004 mainly on the ground that since the State Government through Notification Annex.2 dated 24.5.2004 had taken the decision of increasing the age of retirement of its employees from 58 years to 60 years and since through Resolution No. 52 dated 11.4.1985, which was notified vide office order Annex.1 dated 6.8.1985, it was resolved that age of retirement of employees of RCDF shall be same as was applicable to the employees of Rajasthan Government, therefore, reduction
