Mohar Singh Thakur vs State of H.P. and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.

These three cases are being disposed of by this common judgment since common questions of law and facts are involved.

LPA No. 18 of 2009

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 18.12.2008, made by the Writ Court in CWP No. 1208 of 2005, titled as Mohar Singh v. State of H.P. & others, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant herein came to be dismissed (for short "the impugned judgment").

The writ petitioner-appellant herein invoked the jurisdiction of the Writ Court by the medium of the writ petition for directing the respondents to allow him to serve till he attains the age of superannuation and retire him at the age of 58 years, which was rejected and the writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground that as per the Rules of the Society governing the field, it was nowhere provided that the employees of the Society are to retire on attaining the age of 58 years.

The moot question is whether writ petition will lie against the Society?

This Court in CWP No. 6709 of 2013, titled as Sanjeev Kumar and others v. State of H.P. and others, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 1061 : (2014 Lab IC 3989 (HP) , while relying on the earlier decision of this Court in Chandresh Kumar Malhotra and Others Vs. H.P. State Co-op. Bank and Others, , which decision was also affirmed by the Full Bench of this Court in Vikram Chauhan and Others Vs. The Managing Director and Others, , has held that the Societies cannot be termed as ''State'' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

The Apex Court in the decision rendered in the case titled as Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others, , after discussing the entire law on the subject, has also held that a Co-operative Society does not fall within the expression ''State'' or an ''instrumentality of the State'' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Applying the test to the instant case, the writ petition was not maintainable.

Having said so, the writ petition as well as the LPA is not maintainable and both are dismissed as such. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, if any available.

CWPs No. 3355 & 4928 of 2010

In view of the dismissal of the writ petition and the LPA (supra), both these writ petitions are also dismissed being not maintainable along with all pending applications.