SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 1/18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT
Shanker Lal & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7404/2013 Along with other 11 other writ petitions (See Schedule) DATE OF JUDGMENT
:
20. h February, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr. M.S.Purohit, for the petitioners. Mr. D.K.Parihar, ]. for the respondents. Mr. K.K.Bhati, ].
1. This bunch of matters is being disposed of by this common order and facts are illustratively taken from SBCWP No.7404/2013 – Shanker Lal vs. State & Ors. as well as SBCWP No.12152/2013 – Umaid Singh vs. State & ors.
2. The controversy in hand is about the retirement age, whether it has to be 58 years or 60 years for the employees of respondent - Bikaner Dugdh Utapadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Bikaner, which is independently incorporated Cooperative Society governed by the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. The Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited is the apex body of all the SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 2/18 Districts dairy units, which is also independently incorporated body. This is the third round of litigation before this Court. The earlier rounds of litigation having been disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 23/12/2011 in a bunch of 68 matters led by Dairy Karamchari Union, Jodhpur vs. R.K.Trashal & Ors. by which the contempt petitions & writ petitions came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court headed by the then Chief Justice.
3. The Division Bench of this Court decided the controversy with the following observations:- “Coming to the question whether RCDF should consider the question of enhancement of age of superannuation or the respective Society, the RCDF is the Apex Society and the various Societies are signatories to the registration of the Apex Society under the Act of 2001. The “Member”. has been defined in Section 2(p) of the Act of 2001, which means a person joining in the application for the registration of a Cooperative Society and a person admitted to membership after such registration in accordance with the Act of 2001 and the Rules and the bye laws and includes a nominal and an associate member. Representatives of the 39 Cooperative Societies were the signatories in the application for registration of Apex Society-RCDF. It is not disputed that RCDF has framed Regulations of 1980 and they have been adopted by various Societies. The State Government has power under section 123 of the Act of 2001 to prescribe by framing the Rules, service conditions of employees of the Society. In the absence SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 3/18 of issuing statutory directions, the orders, which have been issued by the State Government, are also enforceable and they have the force of the law. The Government has issued order on 16.6.1990 to the effect that all the Unions (Cooperative Societies) shall adopt Model Service Rules, Cadre and Recruitment Rules, Standing Orders as suggested by RCDF. The order of the State Government was complied with by RCDF and other constituent Cooperative Societies and all Unions/Cooperative Societies had executed agreement with RCDF. The Model Agreement contains clause (3) which is similar to clause (12) of the order of State Government, which is quoted above. Thus, the Cooperatives Societies have agreed to follow all Service Rules and Conditions prescribed by the RCDF for the employees of the Societies signing the agreement. In view of the aforesaid directions of the State Government and the provisions contained in the Model Agreement signed by various Cooperative Societies and considering the fact that Service Regulations of 1980 framed by RCDF have been adopted by various Cooperative Societies and considering the fact that there should be uniformity with respect to the age of superannuation, it would be appropriate that RCDF be directed to consider the question of enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years. Resultantly, the impugned resolutions passed by the RCDF and Societies are hereby quashed and the RCDF is directed to consider the question of SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 4/18 enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years in accordance with the discussion made in the order and thereafter, the decision be sent for adoption to the Cooperative Societies and at that time, they can have say to the extent permissible under the law. It is made clear that the RCDF cannot act arbitrarily and has to act in accordance with law and discussion made in the order and if it is found that RCDF or Societies have acted in arbitrary manner, stern action would be taken by this Court. In the contempt petitions, we have noted that appropriate considerations and factors have not been taken into consideration inspite of clear and categorical directions issued by this Court and irrelevant aspects have been taken into consideration. However, we accept the unconditional apology which has been tendered by the counsel appearing on behalf of the erring respondents, however, we warn them to be careful in future and not to act on irrelevant consideration and in violation of the observations/directions of this Court. The notices of contempt are discharged and contempt proceedings are dropped. Let the matter be reconsidered afresh within a period of two months from today. It was also submitted that certain incumbents, who were allowed to continue in service under the orders of this Court and Federation, have not been paid salary and they have been removed retrospectively. We direct that they cannot be deprived of their salary for the period for which they have rendered services. The respondents are bound to make payment of salary for the period for which they have rendered services. SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 5/18 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the contempt petitions, special appeals and writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Kailash Chandra Joshi)J.
(Arun Mishra)C.J.”. 4. The matter went up to Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No.7946/2012 - Ajmer Zilla Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh & anr. vs. Ajmer Zilla Dairy Employees Union & Ors. along with other connected SLPs and the same came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8/11/2012 with the following observations:-
“5. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, we modify the order of the High Court and direct the Ajmer Zilla Dughdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh, Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. and Paschimi Rajasthan Dugadh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. to re-consider the issue of enhancement of age from 58 years to 60 years bearing in mind the communication of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, dated 17.09.2008 and the clarification made thereof.
6. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion in regard to the merit of the claim and it shall be open for the Federation and the Societies aforesaid to take a final decision without being influenced by the earlier SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 6/18 decision of the High Court. The question of maintainability and other issues is also left open to be decided in an appropriate case.
7. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Sd/- (H.L.DATTU), J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD), J.”. 5. The respondent – Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited (for short ` RCDF') accordingly on reconsideration of the issue took a decision in the matter relating to retiement age on 19/6/2013 enhancing the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years for its employees w.e.f. 12/6/2013, a copy of this connection dated 19/6/2013 is placed on record as Annex.10. The Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner, an independent Society, however, took a different decision on 17/7/2013 to keep the retirement age of its employees at 58 years only. A copy of that order dated 17/7/2013, which was in pursuance of Board of Directors decision dated 10/7/2013 in its 186th Meeting is placed on record as Annex.12. It would be of relevance to quote the impugned order of the Board of Directors also of the aforesaid meeting of said Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner vide agenda item no.170(4):- SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 7/18 पस व न रय 170(4) सघ म अध क र य / कमच र य पबन सच लक ब"क सघ एव क अध व र क (सव न वन ) पन न ध , आ स"ड"एफ ब य कक आय क सब म श"म अधयक सव न वन आय क पक र जय मह&दय एव अनय सच लक स क क स प रवच " ह। सदसय न म स ललख. अ : जय स क एव आ स"ड"एफ पस व ककय कक पबन क ददश न दH श स ह7 अधIम सच लक उ मल 1 क य लय क यव ह7 क ज ए। इसक अल व आदश कम क : उ मल 1 / जजल दग उतप दक सहक 7 सघ सस4 /2008/7476-87 दद क लल० क उपन यम क बबनद सखय 22.9.08 ज 7 क कमच र य / 21.1 क अ स सच लक मणडल अध क र य क अध व र क कवल अध न यम एव न यम क (सव न वन )आय 58 स बढ क अ " ह हए ह7 क य/ न रय क 60 व क गई ह; । उक आदश सक ह; । उपन यम क बबनद सखय न कल स प1व जजस@ 21.3(ब) क अ स सव मकक 4 मह&दय सह क 7 सलमन यA, अनय सव जस4न य क "न जस4 द ज 7 आदश न र सस4 प सलमन क कम क: न यम 89 प र-5 दद क अध क क रव य ह; । अ : इस 17.9.08 म ददय गय आदश क पक र प पहल सस4 प सलमन म पल ह7 क गई ह; अ : रवच ककय ज च दहए। रवस आदश कम क:
7476. 87 दद क रवच -रवमश पश सच लक मणडल 22.9.08 क& न स ककय ज क न व धच सदसय बहम क ह; 4 सघ म अध क र य / अ प सव न वन आय 60 स कमच र य क सव न वन आय घर क 58 व क क न रय 58 व ह7 ."
ज " ह; । ललय । अधयक मह&दय ब य कक पबन सच लक दग सघ(उ मल1 ) जजस@ मह&दय क उप &क ब"क श" आ ०एस०ग&द एव आदश कम क: न यम/89 प र-5 आ स"ड"एफ पन न ध रवत"य दद क 17.9.08 क प ल पबन सल हक श" सजय स&लक द इस सच लक ह7 क ह;, व स" न रय प अप " असहमन एवम T ह7 आदश न क ल ह;, जजस क र आपरत दज क व ई गई। उक पक र क& उचच नय य लय म म व अनय जजल सघ क अधयक ल गय ह; । आदश कम क:
7476. 87 दद क 22.9.08 क आदश क& न स ककय ज ह; । उचच नय य लय म पक र म ककस" पक क स4ग आदश ह7 ददय गय ह; । 6. The decision with regard to retirement age of the employees of RCDF and different Distirct Dairy Units was taken in pursuance of the guidelines laid down by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide his order dated 17/9/2008 in which the guidelines were laid down for deciding the said issue depending SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 8/18 upon the profit & loss position of the respective RCDF & independent Cooperative Societies. A copy of the said order of the Registrar dated 17/9/2008 passed in pursuance of of his powers under Rule 39 (4) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003, is quoted below for ready reference:- “रवभ ग द ए दसब म प1व म ज 7 समस आदश क& अन लनघ क हए जस4 सह क 7 स&स इर7 न यम,2003 क न यम 39 (4) क अन ग जय क रवलभन सहक 7 स&स इदरय क क लमक& (अध क र य&/कमच र य ) क अध व र क आय क समबन म न नम कक न दH श ज 7 ककय ज ह; :- 1. जय क ऐस" सहक 7 स&स इदरय , जज म जय स क क दहसस प1ज" अ4व अ द आदद क रप म जक य दह न दह ह7 ह;, उ म सस4 क सच लक मणडल सस4 क दह क& दरYग . ह1ए अप स स अप क लमक& क अध व र क आय 58 व स बढ क अध क म 60 व क क क सब म न रय ल सकग । 2. जय क ऐस" सहक 7 स&स इदरय , जज म जय स क क दहसस प1ज" अ4व अ द आदद क रप म जक य दह न दह ह;, उ म क लमक& क अध व र क आय क सब म न म स पककय अप य" ज " उपकक ह; ।:- क० ऐस" सहक 7 स&स इदरय , जज म रवग " रवत"य व \ म ह न ह7 ह7 ह; अ4 रवग " रवत"य व \ म न न शद ल भ ह ह; 4 स 4 ह7 जज म कय क लमक& क सखय उ क सव"क सरAफ स@न4 स अध क ह7 ह;, उ क सच लक मणडल सस4 क दह & क& दरYग . हए अप स स अप क लमक& क अध व र क आय 58 व स बढ क अध क म 60 व क क क सब म न रय ल सकग । .० ऐस" सहक 7 स&स इदरय , जज म रवग " रवत"य व \ म स ककस" भ" व हन क जस4न ह7 ह&, SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 9/18 अ4व जज म क य क लमक& क सखय सस4 क सव"क सरAफ स@न4 स अध क ह;, उ क सच लक मणडल यदद सस4 क क &ब आदद वय पक दह क& दर ग . हए अप क लमक& क अध व र क आय 58 व स बढ क 60 व क क क अ शस क ह;, & सच लक मणडल क इस आशय क पस व क& सस4 क मखय क यक 7 न र प रप म अघ&हस क क द पध क अध क 7 क& पर क ग। पध क अध क 7 पप पस व क सब म रवभ ग"य न दH श क पल क हए अधIम आवशयक क यव ह7 क ग। ऐस" सस4 ओ क ललय सस4 क ओ स पर ककय ज व ल पस व क प रप एव प ध क अध क & द क ज व ल7 क यव ह7 क सब म प4क स न दH श ज 7 ककय ज ह ह; । (स श प ) जजस@
"7. Assailing the aforesaid decision of the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner, the petitioners have contended before this Court that the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner cannot take a contrary decision than the one taken by the apex body, namely RCDF, which in its decision vide Annex.10 dated 19/6/2013 had decided to enhance the retirement age of its employees from 58 years to 60 years and, therefore, the resolution of the Board of Directors of the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner deserves to be quashed by this Court. SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 10/18 8. Mr. M.S.Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners also vehemently submitted that the bye-laws of the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner empowers the Establishment Committee to take such decision under Clause 21.3(b), which comprises of Chairman, one representative of NDDB, one representative of RCDF and one representative of Registrar along with the Managing Direcdtor of the respective District Union and it is also envisaged that only the said Establishment Committee can take decision regarding appointment, posting, retirement and other service conditions of the employees. He urged that, therefore, the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner is, therefore, without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed.
9. Per contra, Mr. D.K.Parihar and Mr. K.K.Bhati vehemently opposed these writ petitions and submitted that Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner is in huge financial losses and drawing the attention of the Court towards the Balance Sheet of the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner, which is placed at Annex.R-3/1, submitted that accumulated loss of the said Sangh is to the extent of Rs.18.32 crores as per the Balance Sheet as on 31/3/2007 and in view of consistent losses for more than three years, in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Registrar vide letter dated 17/9/2008, quoted above, the respondent Sangh advisedly took the decision of keeping the retirement age at 58 years only and not to enhance the SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 11/18 same to 60 years and in the absence of any rebuttal material placed before this Court showing the financial condition of the Sangh otherwise, the petitioners cannot successively challenge the Resolution of Board of Directors of the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner which is the higest Management body of the respondent Sangh and consequently, the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that even RCDF vide Annex.R-3/3 dated 2/7/2013 had clarified to the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner that they were independent in this regard and decision taken by the RCDF to enhance the age of retirement to 60 years will not bind the present respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner. The relevant extract of the letter dated 2/7/2013 of RCDF is quoted below for ready reference:- जस4 क&-ऑप दरव डय 7 फ;ड श लललमरड Rajasthan Co-Operative Dairy Federation Limited कम क: आ स"ड"एफ/सस4 /एफ.1(ई)/2013/14885 दद क:
02. 07.2013 पबन सच लक उत 7 जस4 सहक 7 दग उतप दक सघ लल० ब"क । रव य :- अध व र क आय क समबन म। उप &क रव य न ग आपक पत कम क सस4 /एफ.( )/ ब"क /ए ड"ओ/2013 दद क 28.06.2013 क कम म स1धच SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 12/18 क ल. ह; कक इस क य लय क आदश कम क आ स"ड"एफ/सस4 /एफ.1(ई)/सव न वरत/2013/12520-55 दद क 19 ज1 , 2013 द आ स"ड"एफ एव इसक अ " स4 इक इय म क य अध क र य /कमच र य क अध व र क आय 58 व स बढ क 60 व दद क 12 ज1 , 2013 स क गई 4"। सनदलभ अध व र क आय क कवल आ स"ड"एफ एव इसक अ " स4 इक इय क ललए ह7 म नय ह; । जजल दग उतप दक सहक 7 सघ लललमरड आ स"ड"एफ क अ " स4 इक इय ह7 ह; इ क अप सव त सच लक मणडल ह; । अ : उक आदश उत 7 जस4 सहक 7 दग उतप दक सघ लल., ब"क क अध क र य /कमच र य प ल ग1 ह7 ह; । उक पत पबन सच लक, आस"ड"एफ क अ म&द &प न ज ककय ज ह; । (ह 7श ल लव ") मह पबन क (क लमक एव पश स )”.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents also urged that after hearing both the parties at length, the interim order granted by this Court came to be vacated by the coordinate bench of this Court on 26/9/2013. The relevant extract of the said order vacating the interim relief in the present case of Shanker Lal is also quoted below for ready reference:-
“18. Coming to the prayer for interim relief, it is to be noticed that the age of superannuation of the employees of the respondent-Union is governed by Regulation 19 of the Regulations 1992 which prescribes the age of superannuation as 58 years. As noticed above, pursuant to the directions issued by this court modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 13/18 aforesaid, the respondent-Union has already taken a decision not to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. It is not in dispute that in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the directions of the Registrar vide order dated 17.9.2008, the respondent- Union and other Cooperative Societies were required to take the decision regarding the enhancement of the age of superannuation of its employees taking into consideration their own financial condition and other relevant aspects as specified and therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the decision of the RCDF shall be ipso facto applicable to all the Milk Unions, is prima-facie not found acceptable. Moreover, the Board of Directors of the respondent-Union has also taken a decision that the Rules adopted by the RCDF shall not apply to its employees unless specifically adopted by its Board of Directors. Be that as it may, indisputably, as on the date, the age of superannuation of the employees of the respondent-Union remains 58 years and no employee can claim enhancement of the age of superannuation as a matter of right. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, no prima-facie case is made out for grant of interim relief as prayed for. Needless to say that the right and interest of the petitioners regarding their entitlement for consequential benefits in case the petitions succeed and the age of retirement of the employees of the respondent-Union is directed to be enhanced from 58 years to 60 years, can always be taken care of by the Court while passing the final orders.
19. For the aforementioned reasons, no case for SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 14/18 grant of interim relief as prayed for is made out. The stay petitions are therefore, rejected.
20. However, having regard to the controversy involved, the matters need to be finally heard at an early date. Accordingly, the matters are directed to be listed for hearing as soon as the respondent No.2 is duly served. Learned counsels appearing for the respondent No.1 & 4 and the respondent No.3 may also file the reply to the writ petition, if any, in the meantime. Sd/- (Sangeet Lodha), J.”. 12. About the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the decision is to be taken by the Establishment Committee, learned counsel for the respondents urged that the highest management body of the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner, namely; the Board of Directors have taken the aforesaid decision in the matter and same cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Since the Establishment Committee is the another Committee and its constitution under Clause 21.3(b), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be said to be excluding the jurisdiction of Board of Directors itself, which is entitled to take all policy decisions in this regard. Learned counsel for the respondents also urged that the decision having been taken in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the Registrar vide letter dated 17/9/2008 & directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court & clarification given by the RCDF itself, the said decision of Board of Directors is unassailable SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 15/18 and the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
13. I have heard the learned counsels and perused the record including the judgments cited at the bar. This Court is of the considered opinion that this Court cannot issue any mandate to the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner to enhance the retirement age of its employees to 60 years as against the decision of Board of Directors to keep the said retirement age at 58 years. It is a policy matter undoubtedly, which has to be taken by the highest body of the concerned employer – Society itself. The position of accumulated losses of the District Sangh has not been rebutted by the petitioners in any manner. The accumulated losses, which were to the extent of Rs.18 crores as on 31/3/2007 compelled the respondent District Sangh to keep the retirement age at 58 years so as to avoid further increase of such losses by way of additional payment to the employees if their services were to be extended upto 60 years.
14. This Court finds little force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that since RCDF took a different decision to enhance the retirement age from 58 to 60 years, the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner was also bound to enhance the retirement age to 60 years inasmuch as these are two are independently incorporated bodies and their power to take separte policy decisions cannot be questioned. The RCDF in a federal structure of the Dairies in the State of Rajasthan SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 16/18 cannot curtail the powers of independent District Sanghs to take their own policy decision depending upon their profit and loss position, as the case may be. The RCDF itself had gone on record to say vide communication Annex.R-3/3 dated 2/7/2013, as quoted above, that respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner is free to take its own decision in this regard. The decision of RCDF does not bind them in any manner. Even Hon'ble the Apex Court watering down the effect of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court left RCDF & indpendent Societies fre to take their own respective decisions in this regard in view of the guidelines of Registrar vide letter dated 17/9/2008 & subsequent clarifications vide Hon'ble Surpeme Court order quoted above. Therefore, the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected and same is accordingly rejected.
15. The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that Establishment Committee only could take decision in this regard and not the Board of Directors of the said Sangh is also without any substance. The Board of Directors, admittedly, is the highest management body in the said Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 and, therefore, even if the bye laws delineating the power of Establishment Committee including its jurisdiction on the issues relating to appointment, posting, retirement and other service conditions of its employees, the same does not lay down a water tight and straightjacket jurisdiction SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 17/18 for the Establishment Committee so as to exclude the jurisdiction of Board of Directors of the said respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner to take such decision. The said contention is also liable to fail & is accordingly hereby rejected.
16. Thus, on the both counts, this Court is satisfied that the decision taken by the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner to keep the retirement age at 58 years is reasonable and justified and does not call for any interference by this Court, much less calling for any mandamus direction to the contrary.
17. The writ petitions are, thus, found to be devoid of merit and same are accordingly dismissed. No costs. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J.
item no.158-169 baweja/- SBCWP No.7404/13 – Shanker Lal vs. State & ors. Along with other connected writ petitions . Judgment dt:
20. 2/2013 18/18 SCHEDULE (i) Umaid Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12152/2013 (ii) Multan Chand Hatila vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7772/2013 (iii) Mukesh Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.11591/2012 (iv)Satya Narain Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6734/2013 (v)Smt. Kusum Lata Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6735/2013 (vi) Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7620/2013 (vii) Ajay Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7621/2013 (viii) Dev Kishan vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9252/2013 (ix) Ram Gopal Santiya vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10661/2013 (x) Ashok Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10782/2013 (xi) Shanker Lal & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12156/2013