RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is on a reference made by the learned single Judge that this case has been placed before the Division Beach for preliminary hearing. The petitioners have in this writ petition challenged the Notification issued by the State Government dated 17th June, 1988 and published in the Gazette of the same date, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 109 read with sub-section (3) of S. 80 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), substituting new rule 200 for rule 200 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, for short the Rules. The challenge is on the ground that the State has sought to annul the decision of this court reported in 1987 (2) KLT 903 between P. Bhaskaran & Others Vs. Additional Secretary and Others by substituting new rule 200. For the purpose of understanding the crux of the contentions it is necessary to set out the facts in brief as follows:

(2.) The societies registered under the Act had framed bye-laws regulating the terms and conditions of service of its employees. Bye-laws of some of the societies prescribe 60 years as the age of superannuation. Sub-section (3) of S. 80 of the Act empowers the Government to make rules regulating the conditions of service of employees of different co-operative societies specified in sub-section (1). Invoking this power the rules were amended and the same came into force on the 1st of Jan., 1974. The entire Chapter XV regulating the conditions of service of employees of the societies was introduced for the first time by the said Notification. Rule 183 in Chapter XV deals with the age limit and sub-rule (2) of rule 183 provides that no employee shall be eligible to continue in the service of a society after he attains the age of 58 years. If rule 183 (2) alone was there the employees of all the societies who were in service on the 1st of Jan., 1974 when the amended rules came into force would be required to retire on attaining the age of 58 years irrespective of any provision to the contrary contained in the respective bye-laves of the societies. But there was a saving clause added under rule 200 of the rules, which reads as follows:

(3.) The employees of some of the Co-operative Societies which had bye-laws providing for higher age of superannuation of 60 years apprehending that they would be required to retire on attaining the age of 58 years, approached this Court with writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Those cases were referred by a single Judge to the Division Bench and the Division Bench in turn referred them to the Full Bench. The Full Bench rendered its decision which has since been reported in 1987 (2) KLT 903 between P. Bhaskaran & Others Vs. Additional Secretary & Others . The Full Bench after considering all the contentions recorded its conclusions as follows: