THE HIGH COUR OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(S) NO. ' {5&2) /20 1 1 PETITIONER’ : /' Qadir Ali, aged 6O years, s/o late V Zakir Ali, Resident ofJalgiri Marg, Near Chandni Chowk, Nehru Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 21 . State Of Chhattisgarh / Thrdugh: Secretary, of Cooperation, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief Executive Officer District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION‘UNDER'ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Department N A H 3¢~Q HIGH COURT CF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (S) No. 1833 OF 2011 Petitioner : Qadir AH VERSUS Respondents : State of Chhamsgam & Others WRIT PETWIGN UNDER ARTICLE 226 CF THE CONST1TUT¥ON OF iNDlA 53,8. Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon’bQe shii Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. Present: Shy: Sushcbhht Singh, Advocate far the petitioner. 3hr} MFSEhaiia. Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Sh{§ S.C.‘v’erma, Advocate for the {eeponoent No.3. 6RDER ORAL (Passed on this 18‘ day of August, 201 1) 1. Heard iearned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 11.12.20‘i0 (Annexure P4) passed by the respondent No.3 in respect of the petitioner. The petitioner, further seeks to deciare the order dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the resoondent No.2 as ultra vires. 3. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Vehicie Drivet. The service condition of the petitioner is governed by the Ziia Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari ' Seva (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Karya Sthiti) Niyam, 1982 (for short "the Niyam") and according to Rule 3 of the Niyam, the petitioner has been classified as Ciass—V empioyee. Driver, Jamadar, Daftari, Mali, Peon and Chowkidar are graded as ciass-V. Ruie 72 of the Niyam provides for age of superannuation. The age of superannuation of ciass-V empioyees is 60 years. 4. According to the petitioner. on 28.t2.2006, a decision was taken by the respondent authorities to the effect that except J Chowkidar, Jamadar, Peon and MaH, the age of reth'ement of other employees would be 6O years. in the said order, the Driver arid Daftari were not mentioned, in spite of the fact, that they are also ciass-V empioyees‘ For clarification, the respondent No.3 made several requests before the respondent No.2 in respect of the age of superannuation of Driver and Daftari. By letter dated 30.09.2009, the respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.3 that there is no ambiguity in the order dated 28.12.2006. Being aggrieved, the petitioner and other similariy situated persons made a request] representation before the respondent authorities. but the same has not been considered. The empioyees union also represented, but no decision was taken. The petitioner further contended that eariier the petitioner preferred a writ petition chaiienging the order dated 11.12.2010; however, the same has been dismissed as withdrawn with iiberty to file a fresh. Hence, this petition. In exercise of power under Section 55(1) of the MP. Cooperative Societies Act, 1%0, the Registrar framed ruies i.e. the Niyam governing terms and conditions of the District Cooperative Central Bank Empioyees, Ruie 72 provides for retirements, wherein. it was directed that ciass-V employees shall retire on attaining the age of 50 years on superannuation. The said provision was subsequently 'amended by the Registrar, in exercise of his power under Section 55(1) of the Act on 28.12.2008 (Annexure P-2). whereunder, the age of retirement for Chowkidar, Jamadar, Peon and Mali was fixed as 62 years and the age of retirement of Driver & Daitari along with other employees was determined at 60 years. U1 01 §\ ‘.k The contenfton of keamed counsel for the pet‘itioner that the Driver & Daftari aiso belongs to ciass-V and, as such, fixing the date of retirement as 60 years for them, when for other employees of dass-V, retirement age as 62 years is discriminatory, unreasonabie and unconstitutionai. Having heard ieamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pieadings and documents appended thereto. it appears that the empioyer has considered different factors whiie fixing the age of retirement of Driver and Daftari at 60 years. The Driver and Daftari, even if, they belong to class-V, they cannot claim parity with other empioyees like Chowkidar, Jamadar, Peon and Mali} who are to retire on attaining the age of 62 years, as all the employees belong to different cadre having different responsibility and different functions. in V.K. Ssod v. Secretary, Civi/ Aviation & Others’, the Supreme Court held that the rules made under proviso to Article 309 are statutory and legisiative in character. The statutory ruies thus made subject to law that may be made by the Parliament and the same cannot be impeached on the ground that the authorities have prescribed tailor made qualifications to suit the specific persons or post. in Haryana State Minor irrigation Tubewell Corporation & Others v. Medan La} Kohli & Othersz, it was held that if the Corporation has chosen to give a benefit only to ciass—lV employees and not to ciass-lil employees, no fault can be found with them. ii. By amendment in the Rule 72 of the Niyam, extension of the age of retirement of Chowkidar, Jamadar, Peon and Mali to 82 ' ‘93 Supp (3) SCC 9 ‘3 8 SOC 108 kg/V years, cannot be heid as vielative of the constitutional provisions as weli as oiscriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable. The Driver and Daftari beiong to different cadre though they may be under one class. Their duties are different than the aforestated employees; thus, it is for the employer to determine the age of retirement of Driver and Daftari, which may be different from other ciass-V employees it is neither pieaded nor proved that there was any maiice in exercise of power by the Registrar, while making amendment in Rule 72 of the Niyam. Thus, no case has been made out by the petitioner to indiaate that there is any violation of either constitutional or any statutory provisions. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/— Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHORI i RADHE SHYAM SHARMA Judge Judge ashok