IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.27 of 2007 RAHIKA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MADHUBANI, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAMELY, DEENANATH MISHRA, SON OF LATE BISHUN NATH MISHRA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – AT & P.O. MADHUBANI, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI………………………….RESPONDENT-PETITIONER VERSUS 1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE REGISTRAR, CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA…RESPONDENT- OPPOSITE PARTY (IST SET) 2. CHANDRA KANT DAS, SON OF LATE JAIDEO LAL DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAMARA, P.O. & P.S. JHANJHARPUR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI……………..PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY (2ND SET) ----------- 5 04.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. This civil review application has been filed by petitioner-Rahika Central Co-operative Bank Limited through its Managing Director for review of the order dated 8.1.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10586 of 2005. While disposing of the writ application, this Court noticed a Bank Rule of 1974, annexed as Annexure-1, to come to the conclusion that retirement age of the employees of the Bank under Rules has been prescribed at 60 years. Therefore direction was issued in the writ application to the authorities of the Bank - 2 - to reinstate petitioner in service and permit him to work till he attains the age of 60 years with all consequential benefits. From the records of the writ matter it appears that a counter affidavit had been filed by the Managing Director of the Bank, who has also sworn affidavit in support of the review application. In the said counter affidavit it was nowhere stated that said 1974 Rules was not in existence now and it had been replaced by 1994 Rules. The present review application has been filed on the ground that said 1974 Rules was not applicable and 1994 Rules was applicable in the case which prescribes age of retirement of the employees of the Bank as 58 years. From the records of the writ matter it also appears that the petitioner had brought on record a resolution of the Board of Directors of the petitioner Bank which resolved on 19.04.2005 that with effect from 31st March, 2005 age of retirement of employees of the petitioner-Bank shall be 60 years. A letter of the Managing Director of the petitioner-Bank addressed to the Registrar, Co-operative - 3 - Societies, Bihar, Patna dated 14.5.2005 was also annexed as Annexure-5 by which the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 19.4.2005 was forwarded for approval. A letter of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna addressed to the Managing Director of the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited dated 31.05.2000 was annexed as Annexure-6 to show that Registrar of the Co-operative Societies had approved the amendment in the Rules of the Bihar State Cooperative Society Bank Limited by substituting the words “60 years” in place of “58 years”. The fact remains that when the writ application was taken up on 8.1.2007, learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank did not appear nor in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner-Bank sworn by the Managing Director himself, it was at any place mentioned that the Rules as annexed in Annexure-1 was not in operation and 1994 Rules was in vogue. Other documents show that Board of the Directors of the petitioner-Bank had already resolved to increase the age of retirement of the employees to 60 years. This shows that on the basis of - 4 - materials available on record, this Court had passed the order as contained in Annexure-1 dated 8.1.2007. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the review application. The review application is dismissed. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)