RUPAK BARMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. PK Roychoudhury, learned counsel representing the appellant/writ petitioner as well as Dr. B Ahmed, learned counsel representing the Co-operation Department. Having regard to the issues for determination, service of notice upon the remaining respondents is not deemed necessary. Accordingly, the present writ appeal is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) To traverse the facts briefly, the appellant/writ petitioner i.e. Sri Rupak Barman had joined the Gauhati Co-operative Bank Ltd. in the year 1991 as Assistant Cashier and continued as such until he retired from service. The appellant was constrained to institute WP(C) 5122/2015 challenging two orders/letters issued by the Gauhati Co-operative Urban Bank (hereinafter alluded to as 'the Bank') dated 1.6.2015 and 31.7.2015. By the former letter dated 1.6.2015 the appellant was informed that he would retire from service on 2.8.2015 on attaining the age of 58 years on that date. He was requested to produce all original papers and certificates in connection with his service for calculation of retirement benefits. By the second letter dated 31.7.2015 the appellant was informed that although his date of superannuation fell on 2.8.2015, however, he would be allowed to work up to 12.00 noon on 31.8.2015 for the purpose of calculation of his salary and other retirement benefits. A representation was made by the appellant on 16.7.2015 for extension of his service up to 60 years of age, as extended to Government employees and other employees of the Bank. The said representation, however, was rejected on 26.8.2015. On a challenge made to the said letters/orders dated 1.6.2015 and 31.7.2015, the plea of the appellant did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and by judgment and order dated 17.11.2015 the said WP(C) 5122/2015 stood dismissed, wherefore the present appeal is laid.

(3.) The contentions put forth by Mr. Roychoudhury, learned counsel representing the appellant, before the learned Single Judge as well as in this appeal are that the Bank in question has no Service Rules of its own but in matters of discipline the Bank follows the provisions under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rules'). According to Mr. Roychoudhury, the applicability of the aforesaid Rules, expressly and impliedly, suggests that the appellant is at par with the State Government employees and the Bank is also required to follow the conditions of service as extended by the State Government to its employees. To this end, Mr. Roychoudhury refers to the Office Memorandum dated 25.1.2005 issued by the Personnel Department, Govt. of Assam, whereby the age of superannuation of State Govt. employees had been enhanced to 60 years. Entitlement to extension of service up to 60 years of age is laid on the aforesaid aspect. In addition, Mr. Roychoudhury also submits that there are numerous instances in the Bank where services of employees have been extended beyond 58 years of age. In so far as the representation filed by the appellant is concerned, the submission is that the same had been rejected by a non-speaking order and for the fact that the rejection order dated 26.8.2015 does not disclose any application of mind, as such, the said action of the respondent Bank invited intervention of the Court.