Dismissed

Amar Singh v. State Coop Departmentors

Rajasthan HC15 Dec 2014CW/13488/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed three writ petitions challenging the refusal to enhance superannuation age from 58 to 60 years. The Court held that since petitioners had already retired by the effective date of the new rule, no benefit could be granted, noting such personnel decisions are policy matters governed by society bye-laws.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed with no personal benefit granted to retired petitioners.

Amar Singh Vs State Coop Departmentors — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9137/ 2011, 13488/ 13 & 227/ 13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9137/ 2011

¶5

Madan Singh Shekhawat vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶6

with

¶7

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13488/ 2013 Amar Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.227/ 2013

¶8

Ram Gopal Jat vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶9

Date of Order :: 15/12/2014

¶10

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi

¶11

Mr.R.C. Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.Shyam Arya, AAG-for the State-respondent Mr. V.L. Mathur for the respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

BY THE COURT :

¶14

All the petitions involving the similar issues were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶15

In these petitions, the petitioners had challenged the decision of the respondent No.4-Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Milk Society') in not increasing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, however, it appears that the petitioner Madan Singh Shekhawat of the writ petition No.9137/ 2011 has already retired and crossed the age of 60 years, and the petitioner Ram Gopal of CWP No.227/ 2013 had also retired on 31/ 12/ 2012, however he is working on the contractual basis with the respondent society, and the petitioner Amar Singh of writ petition No.13488/ 2013 has also retired. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent society that the respondent society has taken the decision on 5/ 8/ 2013 to increase the age

¶16

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9137/ 2011, 13488/ 13 & 227/ 13

¶17

¶18

of superannuation of its employees to 60 years with effect from 1/ 8/ 2013. The order in this regard has been produced along with the second stay application being No.12573/ 2013 filed by the petitioners.

¶19

It is pertinent to note that the said order dated 5/ 8/ 2013 passed by the respondent society to increase the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years has been made effective from the date 1/ 8/ 2013, whereas all the petitioners of the three petitions have already retired, and the said order fixing the said cut of date has not been challenged by the petitioners. That being the position, the petitioners could not be given benefit of the said order. It may also be mentioned that similar petitions filed by the employees of the other Milk Societies, seeking enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years have been dismissed by the Court not interfering with such decision, which is the policy matter of the respondent society, and also because the societies are governed by their own bye-laws and the statutory provisions contained in the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act and Rules framed thereunder.

¶20

In that view of the matter, the present petitions also deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.

¶21

(Bela M. Trivedi) J.

¶22

Sanjay Solanki PA

¶23

“ All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” Sanjay Solanki Personal Assistant

Amar Singh v. State Coop Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh v. State Coop Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta Gautam Vs State Education Departmentors

M/S Manda Developers and Builders P Ltd. Vs State and Others

Dharmendra Singh and Ors. Vs State Higher Education Depors

Mohanlal Saini Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sarfraj Ali and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hari Prakash Sharma Vs State Animal and Husbsndry Depors