HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 4040 OF 2006. DATED 15th NOVEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN B.Raghavareddy and anr … Petitioners and The Commissioner of Sugars, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 4040 OF 2006. ORDER: The ﬁrst petitioner was appointed as Assistant Cashier in the establishment of the second respondent-the Cuddapah Cooperative Sugars Limited, on 17.7.1978 and later promoted as Stores Accounts clerk on 26.7.1990 and continued as such till his retirement. The second petitioner was appointed as Field-man on 10.6.1978 in the second respondent establishment and continued as such till his retirement. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the agreement and Clause 16(i) of the Standing Order of the second respondent-factory, they are entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. It is the case of the petitioners that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No. 396, Industries & Commerce (Sugar.II) Department, dated 3.9.1990, ﬁxing the age of superannuation of the employees of Nizam Sugar Factory and those under private Sugar Factories as 60 years. The relevant portion of the said GO reads as under: “ The matter has been examined carefully and it has been decided to revise the age of superannuation of workmen of Cooperative Sugar Factories to 60 years. The Commissioner & Director of Sugar is accordingly required to address the Managements of all the Cooperative Sugar Factories to enter into agreements with their workmen specifying their age of superannuation as 60 years in respect of the workmen, which will have prospective eﬀect i.e. from the date of agreement.” It is the further case of the petitioners that in terms of the aforesaid Government Order, a settlement was entered into between the Management of the Cooperative Sugar Factory and the General Secretary of the Cooperative Sugar Factory and Workers Union under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 15.11.1990 and accordingly an agreement was also entered into with regard to the raising of age of superannuation of workmen in the second respondent establishment. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though the said agreement is binding on the second respondent, however, ignoring the same and Standing Order, the second respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 04.01.2006, informing the petitioners to retire from service on 28.2.2006 in view of attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. It is the speciﬁc case of the petitioners that they fall with in the deﬁnition of ‘workman’ as deﬁned under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in view of the agreement entered into between the Union and the management by raising the age of superannuation to 60 years, they are entitled to continue in the employment till attaining the age of 60 years. The ﬁrst respondent ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. In the counter, it is not disputed as to the appointment of the petitioners in the second respondent establishment. It is stated that the Standing Order registered under the Industrial Employment(Standing Orders) Act are not statutory in character and as per Rule 28(5) of the AP Cooperative Societies Rules, the Cooperative Sugar Factories are retiring their employees other than those in the last grade on attaining the age of 58 years. It is further stated that as per G.O.Ms.No. 396, dated 3.9.1990, the Cooperative Sugar Factories are retiring the last grade employees at the age of 60 years and others at the age of 58 years of superannuation. It is further stated that though Clause 16(1) of the Standing Orders of sugar factories speciﬁes the superannuation age as 60 years in terms of G.O.ms.No. 396, dated 3.9.1990, the Full Bench of this Court while disposing of Writ Appeal No. 1109 of 1995 and Writ Petition Nos. 10537 & 10549 of 2002, dated 24.9.2994 discussed the applicability of G.O.Ms.No. 396, dated 3.9.1990 and held that G.O.Ms.No. 396, dated 3.9.1990 is the amendment to Rule 28(5) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 and it did not struck down the Rule as such and therefore the petitioners would come within the purview of Rule 28(5)(i) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 and therefore, they have to retire on attaining the superannuation age of 58 years. It is lastly stated that since the Standing Orders and Bye-laws of the society cannot over ride the statutory rules and the Rule 28(5)(i) of the said Rules is applicable to the petitioners in its entirety, they cannot seek to continue in service till attaining the age of 60 years. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the second respondent, it is stated that the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 24.9.2994, supra, concluded that Rule 28(5) of the AP Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 does not make any distinction between workmen and non-workmen and it is only creates a distinction between last grade servants and other paid servants. It is further stated that the petitioners are not the last grade servants of the second respondent establishment and hence, they have to retire on attaining superannuation age of 58 years. The similar issues, that arise for examination in this Writ Petition, fell for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1109 of 1995 and Writ Petition Nos. 10537 & 10549 of 2002. The Full bench in its judgment dated 24.09.2004 considered the matter in detail and held that the bye-laws of the societies should not be contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder and in view of speciﬁc provision under Section 7 of the Act, the bye-laws in contravention of the Rules, cannot be enforced, that Rule 28(5)(1) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules does not make any distinction between the workmen and non-workmen and it creates a distinction between last grade servants and other paid servant-oﬃcers of the Society. The said rule has been made notwithstanding anything contained in the bye- laws, special bye-laws, service regulations or common cadre regulation of the cooperative societies. In the present case, the petitioners are not the Last Grade Servants and to rebut the same, no material as such is placed before this Court and, hence Rule 28(5) of the Act applies to the petitioners in its full entirety and they have to retire at the age of 58 years. In nutshell, I can say that the issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, referred supra. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, referred supra. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated, 15th November, 2010. Msnro