IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4625 of 2010 KIRTAN SHARMA S/O LATE JANGAL MISTRY R/O VILL./MOHALLA HANUMAN NAGAR, WARD NO. 21, P.S. LAKHISARAI, DISTT.- LAKHISARAI Versus 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUNGHER-JAMUI CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED MUNGER 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Tondon, Advocate. For the State : G.P.-6. For the Bank : Mr. S.N. Pathak, Advocate. ----------- 04. 12.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the counsel for the Munger-Jamui Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Munger(hereinafter referred to as the Bank) who has not filed any counter affidavit in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 25.3.2010. 2. This writ application has been filed challenging the order bearing memo No.637 dated 19.1.2010, Annexure-8, whereunder the Managing Director of the Bank has refused to grant the petitioner the benefit of extended retirement age on the ground that he has not made any representation for grant of the benefit of extended retirement age as also on the ground that he has accepted the gratuity amount. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the light of the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank dated 12.5.2005 petitioner and other employees of the Bank had requested the 2 Managing Director of the Bank to grant them the benefit of the extended retirement age under representation dated 4.3.2008, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure-6 with the brief. Perusal of Annexure-6 indicates that thereunder five employees of the Bank including the petitioner had requested the Managing Director of the Bank to grant them the benefit of extended retirement age. It is further submitted that in the light of the representation, Annexure-6 as also the Government decision dated 26.12.2008, Annexure-9 directing the Bank to grant the benefit of extended retirement age to its employees from the date of resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank, the other four representationist of representation Annexure-6 were allowed such benefit but petitioner was not allowed such benefit he filed separate representation dated 10.1.2009, Annexure-6 series. This Court under orders dated 18.12.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.16663 of 2009, Annexure-7 directed the authorities of the Bank to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.1.2009, Annexure-6 series for grant of benefit of extended retirement age and in compliance of the orders of this Court the authorities of the Bank rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 10.1.2009 under 3 order dated 19.1.2010, Annexure-8 on the ground that petitioner has not made any representation for grant of extended retirement age as also on the ground that he has accepted the gratuity amount. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties, I set aside the order dated 19.1.2010, Annexure-8 directing the petitioner who is already serving the Bank on fixed salary of Rs.2,000/- be granted continuity in service with effect from 1.1.2008 until he attains the extended age of retirement i.e. 60 years but he should refund the gratuity amount which he has already taken. The remuneration paid to the petitioner for his contractual appointment be adjusted towards his salary for the period 1.1.2008 till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)