Uttaranchal High Court · 2006

illegal. In the writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the State stating therein that so far as the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey (supra) is concerned, it applies only to those cooperative Kurk Amins who have been given appointment on the salary basis and since the respondent has rendered his services as commission agent with the cooperative society, therefore, the respondent is not entitled for any benefit in the grab of the judgment passed by Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court and therefore, the petitioner has rightly being retired at the age of 58 years. The respondent/petitioner filed a Rejoinder Affidavit stating therein that according to the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court(cid:146)s judgment in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey (supra), Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis are like the Kurk Amins appointed on salary basis and they are the holder of civil post and hence, they cannot be denied the benefit given to their counterparts. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material on record, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to treat the respondent in service as the age of superannuation is 60 years and further to extend all the benefits to the respondent/petitioner treating him as in service. Thereafter, learned counsel for the appellants/respondents filed a review petition for recalling the above order passed by the Learned Single Judge, which too was dismissed on 11.08.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have come up in this special appeal.

5. Heard Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. K.S. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

6. This Court in a similar Writ Petition NO. 383 (S/S) of 2003 Jagpal Vs State of Uttaranchal & others has placed reliance on the notification dated 28th February, 2003 by which the age of superannuation of the employees working in the cooperative societies has been enhanced from 58 to 60 years w.e.f. 31st January, 2003.

7. The judgment passed in the aforesaid writ petition was challenged by way of special appeal and the Division Bench of this Court held that the G.O. dated 28th February, 2003 is applicable to all the cooperative societies and the retirement age would be 60 years.

8. The Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court in the case reported in JT 2001(4) SC 145 State of U.P. Vs Chandra Prakash Pandey & others has observed that (cid:147)Undisputedly, the decision of the Allahabad High Court that the Kurk Amins, appointed on salary basis for realization of dues of cooperation societies held civil post and became Government servants has attained finality as its correctness has not been challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh by bringing the matter to this Court, rather the same got approval of this Court while remanding the matter to the High Court for consideration the question whether cases of Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis stand on the same footing as that of Kurk Amins appointed on salary basis in whose cases it was declared that the held civil posts and would be entitled to the same salary as is payable to Kurk Amins of Revenue Department.(cid:148)

9. The learned Single Judge in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court as well G.O. dated 28th February, 2006 allowed the writ petition and directed the Department to extent the benefit of aforesaid G.O. to the respondent/petitioner.

10. We do not find any good ground for interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

11. In view of the above, the Special Appeal is dismissed accordingly. The judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge is upheld. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) (P.C. Verma,J.)

05.05.2006. ASWAL