SHYAM KISHORE SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these three writ applications petitioners are former employees of Bihar State Co -operative Bank, Patna. They are aggrieved because by virtue of order dated 5,8.2006 two petitioners, namely, Shyam Kishore Sinha and Mr. Syed Akhtar Hussain in C.W.J.C. No. 10551 of 2006 and C. W.J.C. No.10239 of 2006 respectively have been retired at the age of 58 years and Gajendra Nath Rai petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1521 of 2007 has faced a similar action by an order dated 18.12.2006. These orders are impugned and annexed in these writ applications as annexures -4, 11 and 3 respectively.

(2.) THE reason why these orders came to be issued or passed against the petitioners is the communication issued at the level of Secretary, Department of Co -operative, Government of Bihar which is dated 15.5.2006. The Secretary, while exercising his powers under section 66B of the Bihar Co -operative Societies Act issued a communication to al! Cooperative Societies. This communication came to be issued in the background that demands had been made by employees of a large number of Cooperative Societies that their age of superannuation should also be enhanced to 60 years to bring parity with the State Government employees. The matter was considered at the level of Government and keeping in view the ground reality and financial conditions of Co -operative Societies under the State a policy decision in this regard was taken and communicated by the Secretary of Department of Co -operative under section 66B exercising his powers under Cooperative Soc\eV\es Acl. A 5.5.2006 order states that the Government in principle has agreed to enhance the age of retirement of employees of Co -operative Societies but it was subject to certain conditions laid down therein. These conditions are stated in paragraph Ka 1 to 5 which is as follows:

(3.) BASED on the order and directive of the Secretary, the management of the bank reviewed the cases of these three petitioners and found that their cases fall within the mischief of Clause 4 of Ka as noted above. The management in the impugned orders states that since these petitioners had suffered punishment at one point of time or other therefore in terms of Clause 4 they could not be given benefit of retiring at 60 years. These petitioners were ordered to be retired on reaching the age of 58 years. Petitioners, therefore have challenged not only this decision of management but have also challenged the legal validity of the Secretary 'sorder dated 15.5.2006. In fact, the ire of the petitioners is directed more towards Clause 4 of Ka. This Clause states that those employees who have suffered punishment due to embezzlement, corruption, indiscipline, incompetence or forgery would be kept out of benefit of enhanced age of retirement.