ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
Page 1036
1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for a declaration that he is entitled to continue in the service up to the age of 60 years in pursuance of Resolution, contained in Memo No. 7/V.V.P.-56/2004 Ka. 5826/Ranchi dated 26th October, 2004, issued by the State of Jharkhand, read with Resolution, contained in Memo No. 2/Estb.Co.-178/2004/ 1879, Ranchi dated 28th December, 2005 and other letters, as contained in Annexure 2 series. Further prayer has been made to set aside the order, contained in 1298 dated 31st October, 2005, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been superannuated with effect from 31st October, 2005.
2. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant, as detailed hereunder.
3. The petitioner is an employee of “The Singhbhum District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Chaibasa” (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Co-operative Bank’). The employees of the Cooperative Bank are guided by the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act, 1935’) and the rules, framed thereunder, namely, District Central Co-operative Bank Employees Service Rules (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Service Rules’). As per Rule 21 of the Service Rules, an employee of the Co-operative Bank was entitled to continue in service up to the age of 58 years.
4. The State of Jharkhand enhanced the age of superannuation of its employees and amended Rule 73 of the Jharkhand Service Code by Resolution No. 5826 dated 26th October, 2004. The age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 to 60 years with immediate effect. In respect to the employees of the Co-operative Bank, Chaibasa, the Co-operative Bank made a proposal being Proposal No. 1 dated 8th December, 2004 and decided to request the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, to apply the State of Jharkhand’s Resolution No. 5826 dated 26th October, 2004 for the employees of the Co-operative Bank, Chaibasa. It was resolved to apply the said Resolution No. 5826 dated 26th October, 2004 in respect to the employees of the Co-operative Bank, Chaibasa after obtaining approval from the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. It was referred by the Managing Director, Co-operative Bank, Chaibasa, to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi, by letter No. 2349 dated 16th December, 2004. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, in his turn, forwarded the matter to the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereinafter the matter was placed before the Cabinet and on its approval, the State of Jharkhand issued Resolution No. 1879 dated 28th December, 2005. Rule 21 of the Service Rules was amended and the age of superannuation of the employees of the Co-operative Bank was enhanced from 58 to 60 from the date of issuance of the resolution.
Page 1037
5. Admittedly, the petitioner attained 58 years of age on 31st October, 2005. As the State Government enhanced the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years and the matter relating to Cooperative Society was pending, the petitioner was not satisfied with order No. 1298 dated 31st October, 2005, whereby, he was superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years. After issuance of Resolution No. 1879 dated 28th December, 2005, the present writ petitioner has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer, as noticed above.
6. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Resolution No. 1879 dated 28th December, 2005 has been made effective with effect from the date Resolution No. 5826 dated 26th October, 2004 was issued and thereby, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Clause 5 of Resolution No. 1879 dated 28th December, 2005, wherein, it is mentioned that the decision will come into effect from the date of issuance of resolution and submitted that the date of issuance of resolution means the date of issuance of Resolution No. 5826 dated 26th October, 2004 i.e. the date from which the age of superannuation was actually enhanced and was made applicable to the employees of the Co-operative Bank. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on an unreported decision of Single Judge in the case of Paresh Chandra Saha and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. W.P.(S) No. 190 of 2005 and analogous cases, disposed of on 31st January, 2005. That was a case with regard to the employees of the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation, wherein, similar prayer was made for a declaration that they are entitled to be superannuated only after attaining the age of 60 years on the basis of the Government Circular dated 26th October, 2004. Learned Single Judge having noticed the proceeding of the Board dated 20th December, 2004, directed the respondents to implement the decision, the Board having already decided to increase the age of superannuation of the employees of the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation. The said case is not applicable to the present one, as it appears that the conditions of service of the employees of the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation was at part with the State Government employees. If that be so, the age of superannuation of the State Government employees having been enhanced, one can argue that the said rule is equally applicable to the employees of the Corporation.
7. On the other hand, it appears that similar issue in regard to the Co-operative Bank employees fell for consideration before Single Judge of this Court in the case of Md. Idris Ansari and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. W.P.(S) No. 4995 of 2005. Similar plea was taken, as in the present case. The said case was dismissed by this Court on 23rd January, 2006 by a detailed order, as quoted hereunder:
The petitioners have challenged the order contained in Memo Nos. 402 and 403 both dated 16th August, 2005, whereby and whereunder, they have been superannuated from 31st August, 2005 on attaining the age of 58 years.
According to the petitioners, they should have been allowed to continue in the services up to the age of 60 years, age of superannuation having been enhanced. But such submission cannot be accepted in view of resolution issued from Cooperative Department, Government of Jharkhand vide Memo No. 1897 dated 28th December, 2005, whereby and whereunder Rule 21 of the Service Rule of the Cooperative Employees has been amended with effect from the date of issuance of resolution (28th December, 2005) and the age of superannuation has been enhanced from 58 to Page 1038 60 years. The said resolution being prospective, petitioners cannot derive of the same.
There being no merit, this writ petition is dismissed.
8. The Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, was asked to appear and state about the “Resolution” of which reference has been made at Clause 5 of Resolution No. 1879 dated 28th December, 2005. She appeared along with the original records and also filed a detailed affidavit, enclosing a copy of the relevant document in support of her contention. It appears that the matter was placed before the Cabinet on 24th December, 2005, which resolved to enhance the age of superannuation of the employees of Co-operative Bank from 58 to 60 years with immediate effect. Rule 21 was amended by Resolution No. 1879 dated 28th December, 2005 and it was submitted that the reference of the same very resolution dated 28th December, 2005 has been made at Clause 5 of the said resolution.
9. In this background, we hold that Resolution No. 1879 dated 28th December, 2005 has prospective effect, Rule 21 of the Service Rules having been amended from the said date i.e. 28th December, 2005. As such, the employees of the Co-operative Bank, who attained 58 years of age prior to December, 2005, can not derive advantage of Resolution No. 1879 dated 28th December, 2005.
10. The petitioner having attained the age of superannuation in October, 2005 is not entitled for the declaration, as sought for, and at his instance, no interference is required with the impugned order dated 31st October, 2005. There being no merit, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.