PONDICHERRY CO OPERATIVE URBAN BANK EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION Vs. REGISTRAR THE CO OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the Union representing some of the employees of the second respondent has come forward to file this writ petition, challenging the decision made by the respondents to enhance the age of retirement of the employees from 58 to 60 years. Facts in brief:

(2.) THE first respondent being the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by taking into consideration of the decision of the Central Government issued a direction on 11.06.1999 exercising his power under Section 81(1) of the Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') stating that all the Co-operative Societies in the Union Territory of Pondicherry are required to enhance the retirement age of the employees from 58 to 60 years. THE various Co-operative Societies were asked to pass separate resolutions and send proposals to amend their subsidiary regulation governing the service conditions of the employees.

(3.) MR.V.Raghavachari, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that, after knowing the filing of the writ petition, the approval has been given by the first respondent and the entire records have been tampered with. According to the learned senior counsel, altering the age of retirement by increasing 2 years is a major policy decision, which can be taken only by the Board of Directors. There is no basis for increasing the age and the second respondent being the administer cannot take the role of the elected Board of Directors. The objections of the petitioner have not been considered before passing the resolution. Having taken as a stand in the earlier proceedings to the effect that the enhancement retirement age is not required, it is not open to the respondents to enhance the same. As per the subsidiary regulations, the second respondent does not have the power or authority to modify the service conditions. The decision made by the second respondent as approved by the first respondent is liable to be set aside for not getting the approval of the general body. The approval given by the first respondent is one without jurisdiction, as he has got no power to do so.