C.W.P.No.6043 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.6043 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 19.05.2011 The Mehil Gehila Multipurpose Cooperative Service Society Ltd. ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Sandeep Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashwani Parashar, Advocate, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 2.9.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nawanshahr, in an appeal preferred by respondent No.4-Subhash Chander, wherein he had challenged his retirement at the age of 58 years being not in accordance with the Rules applicable to him which provided for retirement at the age of 60 years and the order dated 9.3.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Joint Registrar (Farming) Cooperative Societies, Punjab, vide which the revision petition preferred by the petitioner-The Mehil Gehila Multipurpose Cooperative Service Society Ltd. was rejected. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be governed by the amended Rules which came into C.W.P.No.6043 of 2010 -2- operation with effect from 23.5.2001 as his retirement is subsequent to the said date. As per amended Rule 19-A of the Punjab State Cooperative Agriculture Service Societies Service Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1997 Rules'), the age of retirement of all the employees is 58 years except Peon-cum-Chowkidar where the age of retirement is 60 years. The petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years was rightly retired with effect from 1.6.2008 and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority allowing the appeal of respondent No.4 and rejection of the revision petition preferred by the petitioner by the Revisional Authority cannot be sustained. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that although the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner could be correct with regard to the employees who are appointed after the date of amendment of the Rules but in the light of proviso attached with Rule 19 of the Service Rules, respondent No.4 was entitled to continue till the age of 60 years as the proviso stated that the employees appointed before the amendment shall be governed by the then existing provisions for retirement of age for all employees which was 60 years and 62 years for Peon-cum- Chowkidar. He, accordingly, states that the appeal of respondent No.4 has rightly been accepted by the Appellate Authority and accordingly, supports the order passed by the Revisional Authority. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Rule 19-A of the 1997 Rules, as it existed prior to the amendment with effect from 23.5.2001, reads as follows:- “Rule No.19 (A) C.W.P.No.6043 of 2010 -3- Every employee of the Society shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years except for the Peon cum Chowkidar who shall retire on attaining the age of sixty two years.” Rule 19-A of the 1997 Rules, after amendment reads as follows:- “Rule No.19(A) Every employee of the Society shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years except for the Peon cum Chowkidar who shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years. Provided that the employees appointed before the amendment shall be governed by the existing provision for retirement of age. It is not in dispute that respondent No.4 was appointed on 20.7.1994 as Salesman-cum-Clerk with the petitioner-Society and, therefore, in the light of the proviso which follows the substantive amended Rule 19-A would govern the age of retirement. The age of retirement, as per the unamended Rule 19-A of the 1997 Rules, was 60 years and, therefore, respondent No.4 was entitled to continue in service till attaining the said age. Thus, the retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years by the petitioner-Society was based on mis-interpretation of the C.W.P.No.6043 of 2010 -4- Rules which cannot be sustained. The Appellate Authority has, rightly in the light of the Rules governing the service, accepted the appeal of respondent No.4. The revision has been rejected by the Revisional Authority in accordance with law. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. Counsel for respondent No.4 has stated that some service benefits are still pending with the petitioner-Society, which may be ordered to be released to respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 is directed to file a representation claiming the service benefits, which according to him have still not been released to him by the petitioner-Society, and the petitioner- society on receipt of the same shall pass a speaking order within a period of two months. In case respondent No.4 is held entitled to the claims so made by him in the representation, the same shall be released to him within a further period of one month. May 19, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE