RAJMANI SINGH Vs. DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition has challenged the order dated March 26, 1998 contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition purporting to retiring him on March 31, 1998 on attainment of 58 years of age.

(2.) Mr. H.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed in the District Co-operative Bank Limited Mirzapur, a Central Co-operative Society, registered under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 in the post of Clerk on December 8, 1962. The age of retirement on the date the petitioner was appointed as prevalent in the said Bank was 60 years. Since the petitioner was born on May 10, 1940 he was due to retire on the attainment of age at 60 years in May, 2000. Whereas the respondent bank sought to retire him on attainment of 58 year by virtue of the order dated March 26, 1998 contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The petitioner had further alleged that other employees who were situated like the petitioner were being permitted to retire at the age of 60 years of age. It is further contended that there was bipartite settlement between the bank and the employees of the Bank to fix the retirement age at 60 years which was entered into a settlement under compromise between the parties in a proceeding relating to a dispute pending before the Industrial Forum. It was further contended that a dispute in respect of 50 District Co-operative Banks was referred to, by the State Government by an order dated December 11, 1963 in connection whereof bipartite settlement in the form of compromise was reached between the parties on February 22, 1966, which was agreed to be effective from January 1, 1965. In that view of the matter the retirement age as fixed in the U.P. Co-operative Bank Societies Employees Regulations, 1975 framed under Section 122 of the Co-operative Societies Act would be 58 years with the proviso that where before commencement of the said regulation at the time of appointment an employee had entered into a contract by which he would have been entitled to be retained in service after 58 years, in such case such employee would be retiring in terms of such contract as provided in Regulation 24 thereof. Relying on this provision, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner having entered into a contract under which he was due to retire an attainment of 60 years, he cannot be asked to retire on attainment of 58 years. Therefore, the said order should be quashed and the petitioner should be permitted to continue till 60 years together with all benefits.

(3.) Mr. K.N. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents on behalf of the respondent bank contended that the alleged bipartite settlement appears to be an application made in the dispute pending before the Industrial Forum. But from the record he had pointed out that no order was passed on the said application. On the other hand he pointed out that the award was passed on the said adjudication of the dispute where the age of retirement was fixed at 58 years which is to be treated to be a contract entered into between the parties before commencement of the 1975 Regulation as contemplated in Regulation 24 of the said 1975 Regulations. He further pointed out that there is nothing to show that at the time of appointment the petitioner had ever entered into any contract under which he can be retained in service till attaining the age of 60 years. The alleged condition of service produced by the petitioner does not seem to be an authenticated one. The copy appears to have been prepared in old papers but from the print thereof it appears that it was printed recently which is also apparent from the soaking (sic) of the ink where it is sought to be attested or signed with anti date. On the other hand Mishra had produced a copy of the service conditions which was duly authenticated wherein retirement age was mentioned as 55 years. Thus he contends that since it is apparent that the petitioner had entered into the contract while appointed that he would be retired at the aged 55 years which was ultimately fixed at 58 years in the award and was also adopted in the 1975 Regulations as such the petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the basis of the fact as has been surfaced from the materials produced before this Court.