IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3389/2010. Laxman Singh Handa Versus Balapura GSS Balapura & Ors. Date of Order:- April 2, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Atma Ram Meena for the petitioner. ***** BY THE COURT:-
Petitioner has assailed the judgment of the Rajasthan Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur.
Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that Tribunal as held in a mechanical manner that petitioner shall not be entitled to reappointment after retirement. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Arbitrator had allowed the claim of the petitioner for reappointment because Society had passed the resolution to that effect. Learned counsel cited the Rajasthan Cooperative Society Ordinance, 2009 by which the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 was amended and Section 30-B was introduced to provide that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time being in force, a short term co-operative credit structure society shall have autonomy in all its financial and internal administrative matters.
Learned counsel submitted that the letter of Joint Registrar (Banks) dated 28/6/2006 prescribing reappointment of a retired employee in the Society was issued after passing of the resolution by the Society on 25/6/2005.
When pointedly asked, learned counsel could not satisfy as to for what period, the petitioner was given reappointment after retirement and rather contended that his reappointment was till duly selected candidates become available.
Tribunal in its order has held that the resolution of the Society after petitioner’s retirement was wholly illegal because erroneously originally, either in the Act of 2001 or any other rules made thereunder or any other bye-laws, it was to justify the reappointment in the case of a retired employee. Moreover, such reappointment was now specifically barred by order of the Joint Registrar (Banks) dated 28/6/2006 whereby a general decision was taken by the Registrar that resolution of the Society for making such reappointment of a retired employee at its level need not be approved. In other words, such resolutions were taken to have been rescinded. No law or rule was submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner to show that petitioner’s insistence for reappointment after retirement was justified. In any case, now that the retirement of the petitioner had taken place on 30/6/2005, there was absolutely no justification at this stage to direct his reappointment.
I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
anil