AMANATH CO-OP BANK LTD Vs. MOHAMMED SHARFUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/Co-operative Bank is aggrieved of the impugned order dtd. 31/7/2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.583/2012.

(2.) One Smt.Badar Jahan, the wife of the first respondent and mother of the second respondent was an employee of the petitioner-Bank. Smt. Badar Jahan retired from service on the ground that she attained the age of superannuation on 30/5/2009. It is not disputed by the petitioner-Bank that the State Government had amended the provisions contained in clause (i) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 18 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', for short) by publishing the amended rules in the official gazette on 17th of September 2008. Prior to the amendment, the age of superannuation of an employee of a co-operative society was 58 years. However, after the amendment, the age of superannuation stood enhanced to 60 years.

(3.) Smt. Badar Jahan had approached this Court in W.P.No.32990/2009, seeking a direction to the petitioner- Bank to continue her in service till she attains the age of 60 years. However, since the writ petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy, the writ petition was dismissed by order dtd. 18/1/2010. Thereafter, Smt.Badar Jahan raised a dispute under Sec. 70 of the Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), before the third respondent-Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The third respondent- Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (for short 'JRCS') dismissed the appeal on 14/6/2012. In the meanwhile, Smt.Badar Jahan passed away on 2/6/2011. The respondents herein, being the legal representatives of Smt.Badar Jahan approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, seeking directions that Smt.Badar Jahan was entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years; that she should be treated as in-service for the entire period; that she is entitled for arrears of salary and retirement benefits to be re-determined accordingly; that the second respondent herein is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds, etc. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner-Bank to treat the deceased employee as in-service between 30/5/2009 to 30/5/2011; to pay arrears of salary and all retirement benefits.