IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11959 of 2005 RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH SON OF SAKHU PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MURICHIKA, P.S. BIRPUR DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATIVE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BEGUSARAI COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BEGUSARAI. 5. THE ADMINISTRATOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI. ----------- 2 06/09/2010 Petitioner was asked to hand over charge and superannuate on completion of 58 years of age with effect from 31.07.2005. The said communication is annxure-1 which has been challenged in the present writ application. Petitioner wants a direction based on the resolution of the State Government contained in annexure-2 to permit him to continue in service till he reaches the age of 60 years. This claim has been made on the basis that the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner is at par with the State government employees and if the age of retirement of other State employees has been enhanced to 60 years, the petitioner - 2 - has a right to retire only on completion of age of 60 years. The very foundation of the claim of the petitioner is based on hypothesis which is not correct. Petitioner is a PACS Manager and are also known as Paid Managers attached with the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society (PACS). These Societies have their own by-laws and terms and conditions which govern them and are guided by the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 to the extent that such by-laws are to be approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies based on which such Societies are supposed to function. There is nothing on the record to show that the Paid Managers are State Government employees or atleast akin to State Government employees. In fact, their service conditions and their terms of appointment including payment of salary have been matters of litigation before this Court in many a matters and the Court has categorically held that they are not government employees and that their entitlement for payment of salary as such is linked with their capability and actual recovery of dues made by them from the members of - 3 - such society. In addition to that the Secretary of the Department of Cooperative had already issued a circular that the Cooperative Societies would not extend the age of retirement of its employees unless they fulfill certain criteria in the background that most of the Societies are virtually defunct, if not on the verge of dissolution due to poor financial status. The case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the case of the Public Sector Undertaking or the State as is being claimed by him on the basis of a decision annexed as annexure- 4. There is no merit in this writ application. It is dismissed as it is based on wrong premise and claim. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)