LAWS(MPH)-2003-5-37

SITA RAM CHOWHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On May 12, 2003
SITA RAM CHOWHAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are employees of Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank maryadit, Hoshangabad, aggrieved by order of respondent No. 2, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, dated 5-10-2002 (Annexure P-3) have filed this petition. Vide order dated 5-10-2002, respondent No. 2 invoking powers under section 55 (1) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 has amended Rule 72 (1) of the Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Seva (Niyojan, nibandhan Tatha Karya Sthiti) Niyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules' ). The effect of the aforesaid amendment is that the age of superannuation will be reduced from 60 to 58 years of the employees.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioners is that in the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'act'), there are three provisions for framing rules:- (i) Under Section 48-C of the Act by the Society; (ii) Under Section 55 (1) by the Registrar; (iii) Under Section 95 by the State Government.

(3.) SECTION 95 (3) of the Act provides that the Rules made under this Act shall be laid down on the table of Legislative Assembly, but in the present case, the amendment of Rule 72 (1) (Annexure P-3) was not placed before the table of Assembly. In the circumstances, it could not be given effect to by respondent No. 3. The petitioners have assailed aforesaid rules on various grounds and have sought writ for quashing Annexure P-3. They have also sought relief of quashment of consequential orders (Annexures P-5 and P-6)issued by respondent No. 3. The learned Counsel for petitioners further contends that in view of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Hemant Kumar Ganga Prasad Gupta Vs. President, District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. , Ambikapur, reported in 1983 MPLJ 461 and in case of hukamchand Mills Karmachari Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha and others Vs. State of M. P. and others, reported in 1988 MPLJ 201, this petition deserves to be allowed.