IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (SS) of 454 of 2011 Surendra Kumar Arora ….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ..Respondents Present : Mr. A. V. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. G. K. Verma, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. A. V. Pundir, Advocate present for the petitioner, Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. G. K. Verma, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner has challenged his premature retirement as an employee of Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Dehradun. Admittedly, the respondent bank, which is an Urban Co- operative Bank, after invoking the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 of the Financial Hand Book has passed an order dated 4.5.2011 for prematurely retiring the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly had entered in the services of the Co- operative Bank in the year 1978 and at the time of invoking of the aforesaid provisions for petitioner, he had crossed the age of 50 years and presently he is 57 years of age. The petitioner, on the other hand, has challenged the premature retirement on the grounds that it has been done by invoking Fundamental Rule 56 whereas these rules are not applicable in his case. The petitioner has also relied on a decision dated 19.2.2005 passed by Division Bench of Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench in Prem Agarwal Vs. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. (Writ Petition No. (SB) 800 of 2004) wherein compulsory retirement was held to be illegal, since Fundamental Rules are not applicable to the employees working in cooperative societies. Counsel appearing for the Bank Sri G. K. Verma placed before this Court a rule known to the Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Dehradun Employees Service Rules, 2002. Rule 21 of the said rules stipulates as follows:- “21. Superannuation and Compulsory Retirement (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, every employee of the Bank shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he reaches the age of superannuation, the age being such as may be applicable in case of employees of the State Government. No employee shall have any claim special cases, which must be recorded in writing, grant extension to an employee upto two years keeping in view his experience and qualifications, if considered necessary in the interest of the bank. Provided that, in case of an employee employed by the bank after his retirement, on consolidated pay or in a regular grade, he shall not be allowed any extension of service and shall retire in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of appointment agreed to between him and the bank. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) above, the Board may, at any time by notice to any employee of the bank (whether permanent or temporary), without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years. The period of such notice shall be three months. However, the procedure to be adopted requiring any bank employee to retire under this rule shall be such as may be laid down under Fundamental Rule 56 of U.P. Fundamental Rules contained in the Financial Handbook Volume-II Part II-IV for the time being in force with such modifications as may be necessary for its application in the case of employee of the bank.” The Fundamental Rule 56, as already stated above, clearly says that any government employee who attains the age of 50 years can be prematurely retired for the reason recorded by the concerned authority. Therefore, since in the service rules of the petitioner, the condition has specifically being given that there shall be a provision of compulsory retirement of an employee and the procedure for compulsorily retiring an employee will be the same as it is mentioned in the Fundamental Rules, 56, the contention of the petitioner that these rules are not applicable in his case of the petitioner are totally misconceived. The law relating to premature/compulsory retirement is by now well settled. The authority has to examine the past service record of such an employee, and based on that pass appropriate orders. Therefore this Court, for abundant precaution had directed the Bank to submit service record of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, respondent bank has filed service record of the petitioner. The court has examined the service record, there is an adverse entry for almost every single year relevant for the purposes. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the competent authority has passed the order of premature retirement against the petitioner totally in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir has relied upon a Division Bench decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Prem Agarwal Vs. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. (Writ Petition No. (SB) 800 of 2004) delivered on 19.2.2005 wherein under similar circumstances, an employee of U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. has challenged an order of compulsory retirement on the grounds that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed invoking Fundamental Rule 56 whereas such a rule is not applicable in his case. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court agreeing with the said submission allowed the writ petition on the ground that since this fundamental rules are not applicable to his services such rules could not have been invoked in his case. All the same, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of the said case cited by him, for the simple reason that there is fundamental difference of facts here before this Court. It has been categorically proved by the counsel appearing for the respondent Mr. G. K. Verma that Fundamental Rule 56 has specifically been adopted to the services of the present petitioner. This being the factual difference, the benefit of the said Division Bench in Prem Agarwal Vs. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. (Writ Petition No. (SB) 800 of 2004) strongly relied upon by the petitioner, cannot be given to him. The writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 20.07.2011 Kuldeep