Kartarpura, Jaipur. vs Jaipur through MD, Parijat Building New Colony, Panch

1/2 Sanjay Sharma s/o late Shri Bal Krishna Sharma, aged about 40 years, resident of 53, Bhagwati Nagar-I, Kartarpura, Jaipur. 1/3 Ajay Sharma s/o late Shri Bal Krishna Sharma aged about 37 years, resident of 53, Bhagwati Nagar-I, Kartarpura, Jaipur. 1/4 Monika Sharma D/o late Shri Bal Krishna Sharma aged about 32 years, resident of 53, Bhagwati Nagar-1, Kartarpura, Jaipur. 1/5 Meenakshi Sharma D/o late Shri Bal Krishna Sharma aged about 34 years, resident of 53, Bhagwati Nagar-I, Kartarpura, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus

1. The Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur through MD, Parijat Building New Colony, Panch Batti, Jaipur.

2. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rupin Kala JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/03/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made by the petitioner for revising the age of retirement of (2 of 5) [CW-1060/2009] the employees working in the Urban Co-operative Bank from 58 to 60 years.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur vide order dated

26.04.1965 by which a direction was issued to all the Co- operative Banks to follow the practice of the Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank. Counsel submits that the Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank vide its office order dated 27.09.2008 has enhanced the age of retirement of its employees from 58 to 60 years, so, under these circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled to get similar benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the service conditions of the petitioner are covered under the banking regulations of the respondent- Bank i.e. Urban Cooperative Bank Employees Service Rules, 1987, wherein, the age of superannuation has been fixed as 58 years. Counsel submits that banking regulations of respondent-Bank are approved by the concerned Registrar. Counsel submits that the similar controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Basanti Lal Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. While deciding SB Civil Writ Petition No.5692/2005 on 23.0.2017. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner also deserves the same treatment.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. (3 of 5) [CW-1060/2009]

5. The controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Basanti Lal Sharma (supra) with the following observations and directions: “The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Clerk by the respondent Bank on 4.11.1969. As per the petitioner his services were governed by the Urban Cooperative Bank Employees Service Rules, 1987 duly framed under Rule-41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 read with Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. As per the petitioner under Rule 23 of the Chapter VI of the Rules of 1987, it is clearly mentioned that service conditions with regard to superannuation and age of retirement of the respondent-Bank’s employees would be same as per the rules framed by the State Government from time to time which at that time was 58 years. Thus, the petitioner who was to be retired on 30.7.2005, at the age of 58 years filed this writ petition for Rule 23 and implementation of consequentially sought direction from this court to allow him to superannuate at the age of 60 years. The respondents filed a detailed reply and mentioned that they were governed by their own service rules framed in the year 2000 and as per Chapter (V) of the Urban Cooperative Limited, Jaipur employees service rules, the age of superannuation has already been fixed. The counsel for the petitioner drew attention of the court to the Annex. R4/4 dated 19.9.2003 stating that the Cooperative Act, 2001 would now be applicable and the earlier Act of 1965 particularly Section 139 shall not be applicable for any purposes. The counsel for the respondents has referred to the judgment passed in the The People (4 of 5) [CW-1060/2009] Cooperative Society Limited, Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.859/2004 decided on 18.3.2005 whereby this court held that in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment of Banshidhar Vs. State of Rajasthan [reported in AIR 1989 SC 1614] whereby any order passed in accordance with the order dated 19.9.2003 proceeding on assumption that because of coming into force of the Act of 2001, the exemption the Societies stands granted automatically cancelled was set aside. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case this court is of the opinion that once the respondents have come out with a categorical case that the services of their employees shall be governed by their own service rules framed in the year 2000 and as per Chapter V(5) of the Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Jaipur Employees Service Rules, the superannuation age was 58 years and therefore, there is no question of allowing the petitioner to superannuate after attaining the age of 60 years. This court also takes note of the fact that the petitioner had superannuated on 30.7.2005 at the age of 58 years and today we are in the year, 2017 and the petitioner has already attained the age of about 70 years and for aforesaid reasons the prayer cannot be granted. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is dismissed.

6. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the respondents and looking to the fact that the controversy involved in this petition has already been decided in the case of Basanti Lal Sharma (supra), this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view. (5 of 5) [CW-1060/2009]

7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed in the light of similar observations passed in the case of Basanti Lal Sharma (supra). Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/94