AMENDED PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, WRIT PETITION (S) No.21 15 OF 2009 Khatbadan Singh Parihar, aged about 58 years, S/o. Shri Rameshwar Singh Parihar, Occupation — Sales Promoter PETITIONER (Vikray Protsahan Sangathak) present1y posted at Bahusepara, Jagdalpur, Dairy Vikas Project, Jagdalpur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of C. G. Through it’s Secretary Co—operative Society, Raipur (C.G.) 2.The Managing Director, Raipur Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit, Village Urla Post — B.M.Y. Charoda, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. The Project Officer, Dugdh Pariyojna) Jagdalpur Dist. Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4. Manager/In—charge, Dugdh Sheet Kendra, Babusemara, J agdalpur, Distt. Baster (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA. , HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 21 15 of 2009 P6titioner Khatbadan Singh Parihar Versus Respondents State of C G & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri R. S. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent Shri P. S. Koshy, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 4. O R D ER (Oral) (Passed on this 19m day of March, 2010) The petitioner, by this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 24.3.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Managing Director, Raipur Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited ( for short ‘Dugdh Sangh’). Brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was working on the post of Sales Promoter (W W13? m ] in Dairy Development Project, Jagdalpur. By order dated 14.5.2008 (Annexure P/ 5) the petitioner was intimated that on attaining the / age of 58 years i.e. the age of superannuation on 29112008, he would be retired from service w.e.f. 30.11.2008. In the mean time, in the meeting of the Directors of the Dugdh Sangh, held on 23.9.2008 a resolution was passed to enhance the date of retirement of the employees ‘of the Dugdh Sangh from 58 years to 60 years. Accordingly, by letter dated 26/27.9.2008 (Annexure AFK Writ Petition (S) No. 2115 of 2009 c6? P/7) the proposal was sent to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur for approval. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (S) No. 6611/2008 before this Court, challenging the order dated 14.5.2008, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 26. 1 1.2008 (Annexure P/9). The proposal of the Dugdh Sangh for enhancing the date of retirement of the employees was approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh by order dated 29.12.2008 (Annexure P/ll). Although, the proposal for enhancement of date of retirement from 58 to 6O years, which was sent for approval on 26/27.9.2008 (Annexure P/7), was approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh by order dated 29.12.2008 (Annexure P/ 1 l) but there was no mention asto from which date the benefit of enhancement in date of retirement would be given effect to. Thus, by letter dated 16.1.2009 (Annexure P/14) a clarification was sought from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. In response, by order dated 6.3.2009 it was communicated to the Dugdh Sangh that the order would be made effective from the date of its-issue i.e. 29.12.2008. The case of the petitioner is that he had filed an application dated 3.1.2009 (Anne/xure‘ P7 13) for allowing him to continue in service till he attains the age of 6O years. The petitioner also sworn an affidavit on 19.1.2009 that if the proposal for enhancement of date of superannuation is not approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, he would not claim any pay, allowance and damages for the period he would be allowed to work. Having considered the application of the petitioner, as well Writ Petition (S) N0. 21 15 of 2009 c§ as the affidavit, by order dated 20.1.2009 (Annexure R/4) the petitioner was allowed to continue in service. In View of the aboVe situation, when the proposal for enhancement in date of retirement was not approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, w.e.f. the date of resolution (23.9.2008) or the date of the request for approval (26/27.9.2008) and as the approval was granted W.e.f. the date of the order dated 29.12.2008V( after the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e. 30.11.2008), by the impugned order dated 24.3.2009 (Annexure P/l) the petitioner was not allowed the benefit of enhancement in the date of retirement. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on 28.1.1982 in the Ujjain Dugdh Sangh (Sahakari) Maryadit (Madhya Pradesh); By order dated 28.10.2000 (Annexure P/3) the petitioner was allocated to the i State of Chhattisgarh. In the State of Madhya Pradesh the date of retirement was enhanced from 58 to 6O years w.e.f. 30.9.2008 by order dated 1.10.2008 (AnneXure P/S). In the State of Chhattisgarh the resolution was passed by the Board of Directors on 23.9.2008 and the same was sent to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies/for approval on 26/27.9.2008 i.e. prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner (30.11.2008) and the formal approval of the proposal was granted by order dated 29.12.2008. When there was no mention in the order dated 29.12.2008 in regard to date of acceptance of the proposal, it ought to have been deemed to have been approved either from the date of decision of the Board ofi’Directors (23.9.2008) or the date of communication of the proposal (26/27.9.2008). Writ Petition (S) No. 2115 of 2009 § Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that since the Board of Directors had take the decision on 23.9.2008 and the same was sent _for approval on 26/27.9.2008, the petitioner was not retired by the respondents w.e.f. 30.11.2008 and he was permitted to work till 24.3.2009. Accordingly, in any case, the petitioner is entitled for salary and allowances for the period 1.12.2008 to 24.3.2009 when the petitioner actually discharged his duties. On the other hand, Shri Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that Dugdh Sangh cannot act on its resolution, in absence of approval from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, in accordance with law. The respondents No. 2 to 4, with intention to extend the benefit of enhancement in date of retirement to the petitioner, permitted him to continue on duty by order dated 20.1.2009 (Annexure R/4) at the peril of the petitioner. In absence of approval from the previous date i.e. 30. 1 1.2008, no benefit could be granted to the petitioner. 10. Mr. Koshy further submits that the petitioner was permitted to discharge his duties by order dated 20.1.2009 (Annexure R/4) at the peril of the petitioner, subject to the condition that in case approval was not [accorded by the Registrar, Cooperative // r H‘ Societies, he would not claim pay and allowances. ll. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation as on 29.11.2008 on attaining the age of 58 years and thereafter he was retired w.e.f. 30.11.2008. The Board [of 'Directors passed the resolution on 23.9.2008 but the same was approved on 29.12.2008. On a query, it was made clear by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies Writ Petition_@ No. 21 15 of 2009 51/0 that the order would be effective w.e.f. 29.12.2008. The petitioner retired from service W.e.f. 30.11.2008. Thus, the question is when the Board of Directors resolved to enhance the age of retirement from 58 to 6O years in its meeting held on 23.9.2008 and before approval by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the petitioner retired from service and as such whether the petitioner is entitled to continue in service up to 6O years on the basis of resolution passed by the Board of Directors. 12. The principle of law is well settled. The resolution is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (Eight Edition), as under : “ Resolution. 1. Parliamentary law. A main motion that formally expresses the sense, will, or action of a deliberative assembly. A resolution is a highly formal kind of main motion, often containing a preamble, and one or more resolving clauses in the form, “Resolved, That. Concurrent resolution. A resolution passed by one house and agreed to by the other. It expresses the legislature’s opinion on a subject butvdoes not have the force of law. A document containing such an expression or authorization.” As per the Chambers 2 lst Century Dictionary , ‘resolution’ means “a formal decision, expression of opinion, etc by a group of people, eg at a public meeting”. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary I(Eleverith / Edition) defines ‘resolution’ “a formal decision or expression of opinion by a legislative assembly, committee, public meting etc: a formulation of this”. 13. From bare perusal of the above definition, it is clear that a ‘resolution’ is an expression of the opinion of the members who have come to a unanimous conclusion but the ‘resolution’ by \\ itself does not have the force of law. 5 [z ‘ . Writ Petition (S) No. 2115 of 2009 14. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia 8a Anr.1 While considering a resolution passed by the Government of India for eviction of the unauthorized occupants from the occupancy 0f the premises on the basis of the resolution passed' by the Government, the Supreme Court observed that the resolution are mere guidelines and not controlled by the statutory provisions. 15. Since the resolution is an opinion of members, in the present case of Directors, that by itself does not have the force of law until it is approved by the statutory authority i.e. the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. In the case on hand, the same was done on 29.12.2008 and it was further made clear that the order having force of law was passed on 29.12.2008 without having retrospective effect. The contention of the petitioner that since the resolution was taken prior to his retirement he is entitled to continue till the age of 6O years is misconceived and does not merit acceptance. 16. The second contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was allowed to continue even after retirement till 24.3.2009, thus, the petitioner ought to have given the benefit of the order dated 29.12.2008 for enhan/cement of his age of retirement, is frivolous, // r r‘ as mere continuation in the office does not confer any right on the petitioner to avail the benefit of enhancement of age which was granted after his retirement (30.11.2008) on 29.12.2008. So far as the payment of salary and other allowances is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to the same for the period i.e. 1.12.2008 to 24.3.2009 on the ground thati‘the petitioner has actually 1 2008 AIR SCW 208 Writ Petition (SI No. 2115 of 2009 the age of retirement and other retiral benefits granted on attaining the age of retirement i.e. 30. 1 1 .2008. 17. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order asto costs. sax. , l ' satish K. Agnihoml ‘\x Judge 1