^^-^- v ^ ^^^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) W. P. NO^S-38 OF 2004 PETITIONER ^e- ^ ^/.y -1^ i ^" ^ S^S' Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Sangh, Jagdalpur A Registered association of Emp!oyees of the District Central o-operative Bank Ltd., Bastar Dn., Jagdapur bearing Registration No. 5672 dated 11/7/2000 & having its regd. office in the premises of the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited., Jagdalpur Through its Presidentl^lanoj KumarJha, S/o Late Pandit R. L. Jha, Aged about 47 years, Occupation - Service, presently posted as Lames Manager, Distt. Coop, Centra! Bank,Kanker,Dist.Kanker[CG] VERSUS ^" RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture & Co-operative, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur [Chhattisgarh] 2. Registrar, Societies, Labhandi, Co-operative Chhattisgarh Raipur [CG] ^'~~' ^^ 3. Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Jagdaipur, through Its Chief Executive Officer Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar [CG] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: © HIGH COURT OF AT (DiVISION BENCH i N0. 3578 OF 2004 Zila Kendriya Sangh, Jagdaipur Versus of Chhattisgarh & Order for consideration Sd/- ChiefJustice Shrl L.C. J. t. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Post for 2^> /October, 2004. Sd/- Chief Justice ^10-2004 1 :i ^N;i 10 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT f i CORAM : Hon'ble Shri A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, CJ. & Shri L.C. J WRIT PETITION N0. 3578 OF 2004 Ziia Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Sangh, Jagdalpur Versus of ChhaStlsgarh & Qthers. Petltioner by Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Advocate. Respondents 1 & by Shri P.K. Verma, Addltlonal Advocate General. ORDER ( 2004) Ti"ie foliowlng order of the Court was by A.S. Venkatachaia Moorthy, C.J. The respondent namely Registrar Co-operative an order reducjng the age of retlrement of the empioyees of Chhattlsgarh Co-operatlve and Dlstrjct Central Bank to 58 from 60 years, by ite order 10-09-2004. The petitioner by name Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Sangh, Jagdalpur, which is a Registered Association of the empl'oyees of the District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bastar Division, Jagdaipur, has filed the inst-ant writ petition praying the Court to issue writ of certiorari to ^ f> quash the said order so also the earlier order dated 30-07-2004 passed by the State Government. An interim relief has aiso b©Qnsought for praying the Court for staying the above said orders etc. (2) The petitioner has put forth the following submissions:- (i) Under Sectlon 55 (1) of the Co-operative Act (hereinafter to as "the Act") the can frame rutes from time to governing the and conditlons of empioyment in a sociery or class of societies, but however, as per Sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Act the sa.me shall be laid on the table of Leglsjatjve Assembly, But In this case that not dcne. That being so, it should only be that the amendment in rules has not come into force. (ii) The empioyees of the State Co-operative Bank as well as District Co-operative Centra! Bank discharge the arduous dyties which are radjc^lly djfferent from the of the duties performed by the empic-yees in other Co-operative Societles. The functioning of the Co-operative Banks is entirely different, with different staffing pattern. The ©mpioyees of the Co-operative Banks form a djfferent class when compared to the employees of the other Co- operative SQcistles. (iii) The respondents have into account the irreievant considerations in passing the impugned orders and hence the impugned orders are liabie to be quashed as arbitmry and irrational.. (3) Learned Additionaj Adyocate General appearing for the contended that as per the Ru!e 55(3) of the Act all that is required is that the order of the Registrar must be placed before the Assembly, but it is not a pre condition for a Rule to come into effect. Fixing the age of retirement @ is a matter of policy and the Registrar has taken Into consideration only roiovant factors for passing the impugned oraors. What is boing contended is that the employees of the Co-operative Banks discharge different kind of functions but no V(/here it has been that their functions are arduous compared to the functions of the employees of other Co-operative Socletles. Finally, it is submitted that the ryle down employees who ere In and 58 yo^rs of age ^hall be a3 retired is v^lid. (4) Ws stmjghtaway s§ythat In view of the rullngs of the Court reported in 2003 f9) JT-178 and also 1979(2) SCC-196. there is no substance in the first submission made by the petitioner. (5) Remaining point-s oan be taken together and considered. It is pleaded by the petitioner that the employees of the Co-operative Banks dischargo different kind of functions which ar©arduous, but no where it is pieaded that their functions when compared to the functions of the of Co-operatlve are arduous / Qnerous. It may be that Chhattisgarh Co-operative and Disfrict Co- operative Centrai Banks carry' on dlfferent klnd of work. but that wltl not prevent the from a poljcy to the age of the omployees from 60 year^ to 58 years. The roa^ons gjven by the Stete Government that the reduotion is necessary in order to bring out the simiiarity regarding tho ago of retirement and aJso to improve the finanoiaf position cannot be to be irrelevant conslderatjons. Of course, a contention is raised that the Government owes about Rs.155 Crores to Co-operative and that is why the financial condition is not satisfactory and that they are running in loss. But unless it Is known what ^ is the extent of actual loss that is being sustained by these banks, with the avais£ablo materials It cannot be said that failure of th©Government to pay the amount to Co-operative Banks is the only reason for financial loss to banks. The poiicy dedsjon by the to reduce the age of the be said to be or jrratlonal. tn the of LIC of Vs. S.S, S-C-1827), the observed §s "the Court can take Judlclal notice of the of prevaijing in the in india. In almost ail the public Corporations, Cantrai and State services 58 years age is considored to be a reasonable age at which officers can be directed to retire from their service^" Of c-ourse, it Is pointed out that are number of jn the yet to be up. if that be so, that be a ground for the impugned orders. (6) From the this C-ourt is of the that the writ petltlon is devold of merlts. Accordi'ngly, the writ petltlon is at the admission _^.^_-—_L_— __J_—_ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge '^4^Q12QQ4