RAMCHANDRA PANDE Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this petition seeks to quash the Revenue Board's order dated 6-5-1982 (6-5-82) (Annexure-XI), passed in Appeal Case No. 145-1/80, against the order dated 4-7-1980, passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Indore, in Appeal Case No. N-II/79, threby allowing the respondent No. 4 Bank's appeal in the matter of petitioner's retirement under Rule 21 of the Madhya Pradesh Bank Employees Services (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').

(2.) It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as Secretary in the Respondent No. 4-Bank on 9-1-1947, his date of birth being 3-6-1927. The petitioner completed 25 years of service on 9-1-1972 and after considering the petitioner's case the Board of Directors of the Respondent-Bank on 30-3-1972, passed a resolution to the effect that the petitioner should not be retired from service. There is also no dispute with regard to the petitioner's contention that his service is governed by the Service Rules framed by the Respondent-Bank, which came into force with effect from 1-7-1959. It is also not disputed that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh has in exercise of powers conferred under Section 55(1) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act), framed rules relating to employment and working conditions of the employees. These rules came into force with effect from 8-11-1965. Rule 50 of the Rules framed by the Registrar repeals all other Rules in force in any Bank immediately before the commencement of these rules (i. e. the Rules framed by the Registrar) on 8-11-1955. There is also no dispute that had the petitioner been continued in service, he would have completed the age of 60 years on 3-6-1982. But the point of controversy between the parties is that according to the respondent-Bank the petitioner has no vested right in him to continue in service till he reaches the age of 60 years. The other point of controversy is that the Bank having once decided not to retire the petitioner on having completed 25 years service, vide order Annexur-II, the subsequent resolution dated 4-8-1973 (Annexure-III), resolving to retire the petitioner is null and void. The petitioner contends that the earlier resolution could not be legally reviewed by the Respondent-Bank, while the respondent-Bank's contention is that even if there be no power to review the respondent-Bank was competent to pass such an order.

(3.) The petitioner availed of the procedural remedies provided under the Act and was ordered to be reinstated in service by the Assistant Registrar, vide his order dated 16-8-1979 (Annexure-VII), although without back wages, following the principles of 'no work no pay. Thereupon an appeal was preferred by both the petitioner as well as the Bank before the Registrar and by order dated 4-7-1980 (Annexure-10) the Joint Registrar came to the conclusion that the resolution dated 4-8-1973 retiring the petitioner was contrary to the principles of natural justice and the same was quashed. The petitioner was also awarded all the benefits of services and the appeal preferred by the Bank wcs dismissed. Against this order the Bank preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue and the order thereon is Annexure-XI.