IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10985 of 2007 BALMIKI SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 21.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved because he has been made to superannuate on reaching the age of 58 years on 31.08.2007. He claims that in view of the order passed by the Secretary, Department of Co-operative Societies, Government of Bihar, dated 15.05.2006, the age of retirement of the employees of the co- operative societies has been enhanced to 60 years, but he does not deny that Annexure – 1 is not an absolute order but has certain conditions laid down therein and only on fulfilling such conditions can a co-operative society take decision for enhancing the age of retirement. Primary contention of the petitioner besides the above is that the Bank does not have its own service regulation and in view of the same, the Bihar Service Code is applicable 2 in such matters. Respondents in their counter affidavit have taken two stands: 1. That there cannot be automatic enhancement in the age of retirement, even in terms of the order of the Secretary dated 15.05.2006, because the Bank is under Section 11 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and suffering loss for which there is evidence and material on record. In that view of the matter, they are not entitled to enhance the age of retirement to their employees because they do not fulfill at least one of the criteria laid down therein. 2. There is a service rule of the staff of the Central Co-operative Bank in Bihar which has been duly notified by the Department of Co-operative Societies vide notification dated 01.02.1994. Under the said rule chapter 8 deals with the age of retirement. Rule 21 categorically lays down that the age of retirement from service in the Bank shall be 58 years, that being the position in law as well 3 as fact, there may not be any occasion for the Court to direct the respondents to enhance the age of retirement of the employees of the Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter has drawn my attention to an order dated 24.05.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5508 of 2006, where as an ad interim measure petitioner in that case was allowed to continue in service till the counter affidavit would be filed. The order in question does not lay down any issue. It also went with the basic premise that the Bank does not have its service rules and regulations. My attention has also been drawn to yet another order passed in the case of the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 5508 of 2006 in another writ of his i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 5679 of 2007 dated 30.07.2007. It has been brought on record as Annexure – C to the counter affidavit. In this case, the Court had turned down the plea of that petitioner to claim enhanced age of retirement for the reasons 4 indicated in the order. The case of the present petitioner being no different and also for the reasons and above stated position, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ application of the petitioner and direct respondents to enhance the age of retirement of the employees in question. The writ application stands dismissed. Rajeev/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)