Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:49519-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 716 of 2025 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.10.06 17:39:04 +0530 Smt. Sunita Jha W/o Shri Govind Jha Aged About 64 Years (Now 68 Years), R/o Samta Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Cooperative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Raipur Sahakari Karmachari Mitvyayi Samiti Marayadit Registration No. 746, Through Its President Raipur Sahakari Karmachari Mitvyayi Samiti Maryadit, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Manager Raipur Sahakari Karmachari Mitvyayi Samiti Marayadit Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Registrar Cooperative Society Chhattisgarh, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 5 - Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.10.2025 1. 2. Heard Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition WPS No. 6449 of 2021, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant/petitioner was initially appointed as a Daily Wager Class-IV Employee by 3 respondent No. 2 on 04.12.2000, and her services were regularized on 29.04.2004. Thereafter, on 20.05.2004, she was granted the amended pay scale equivalent to that of a Peon of the Bank. Subsequently, vide order dated 30.12.2015, respondent No. 3 directed her retirement from service w.e.f. 31.12.2015 upon her attaining the age of 58 years. The appellant/petitioner challenged the said order before respondent No. 5 under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Co- operative Societies Act, 1960, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2016. Aggrieved thereby, she preferred an appeal before respondent No. 4, which was dismissed on 29.05.2017, and a Second Appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Co- operative Tribunal, Raipur, was also dismissed on 17.09.2021. Thereafter, she filed W.P.(S) No. 6449/2021 before this Court, which too was dismissed by the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- “6. It is admitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee under the Samiti on 04.12.2000, 4 and his services were regularized on 27.09.2003. He was superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.12.2015. 7. The Registrar, while allowing the appeal on 07.05.2019, relied on certain notifications of the State Government, whereby the age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 to 60 years. The State Government vide notification dated 31.8.2013 enhanced the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years. The Registrar held that the employees of the cooperative societies are governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Rules and, therefore, these notifications would apply. 8. The Tribunal held that under Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the Registrar has the power to make rules. Section 55(1) provides that such rules may govern various service conditions, including the retirement age. It was found that rules have not been framed by the Registrar under this provision prescribing the retirement age for Class-IV employees of cooperative societies. 9. The Tribunal further found that the petitioner failed to produce any relevant service rules or by-laws of the Samiti establishing that the age of superannuation was 62 years. Reliance placed by the Registrar on the State Government circulars/notifications was not supported by any evidence showing that such circulars were applicable to the employees of the 5 cooperative societies or the Samiti. The Registrar’s conclusion was based on the State Government notifications applicable to the government employees. It is also held by the learned Tribunal that there was nothing on record to show that these notifications were ever made applicable to cooperative society employees by framing rules under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960, or by any other valid method. 10. In the absence of any statutory rule, by-law, or notification specifically extending the retirement age of Class-IV employees of the cooperative societies to 62 years, the Tribunal’s conclusion cannot be interfered with.
Decision
11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present writ petition. The impugned order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bilaspur, does not call for interference. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned order dated 13.08.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, is bad in law, perverse, erroneous, and illegal, and therefore liable to be set aside. He would submit that the conclusion drawn in paragraph 9 of the impugned order is contrary to the evidence 6 available on record, particularly the cross-examination of Sevaram Verma, Manager of the respondent society, as reproduced in paragraphs 11 and 26 of his statement (Page Nos. 45 to 52 of the writ petition). He would submit that in absence of any statutory rule, by-law, or notification prescribing the retirement age of Class-IV employees of a Cooperative Society as 62 years, the claim of the appellant cannot be accepted. The said finding is erroneous, as the respondent society itself admitted that no separate Service Rules have been framed for its employees. Therefore, in absence of any such Rules, the Banking Service Rules are liable to be applied, since the respondent society is afÏliated with the Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, and the employees are extended similar service benefits and pay structure. Hence, in view of the above submissions, the impugned order deserves to be set aside 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not produced any by-laws or service rules applicable to the Samiti to establish that the retirement age of class IV employees was 62 years. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already crossed the age of 7 62 years and also submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available in the record. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we find no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. It is admitted that the appellant was appointed as a Class-IV employee under the respondent Samiti on 04.12.2000, her services were regularized on 27.09.2003, and she was superannuated upon attaining the age of 58 years on 31.12.2015. In absence of any statutory rule, by-law, or notification extending the age of superannuation of Class-IV employees of cooperative societies to 62 years, the reliance placed by the Registrar on the State Government notifications enhancing the retirement age of Government employees was misconceived. The Tribunal, upon due consideration, has also recorded a categorical finding that no service rules have been framed by the Registrar under Section 55(1) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 8 1960 prescribing the retirement age for employees of cooperative societies, nor was any material produced to establish that the said Government notifications were ever made applicable to cooperative society employees. 9. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that, in the absence of any statutory provision or valid rule extending the age of superannuation, the petitioner’s retirement at the age of 58 years cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. No ground for interference in the impugned order has been made out. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice shoaib