Roshan Lal vs State Of Himachal Prades And Ors

Sandeep Sharma, J

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 21.8.2023, whereby appeal having been filed by the petitioner herein, laying therein challenge to order dated 5.8.2023, passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rampur, District Shimla, H.P., came to be dismissed, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order.

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that appellate authority while deciding the appeal failed to appreciate that termination of the management committee and nomination of new members was wrong and as such, decision taken by them qua retiring the petitioner at the age of 67 years was bad in law. However, having taken note of the fact that in Cooperative Societies, person having attained age of 65 is liable to be superannuated and in the case of the petitioner, he has already completed age of 67 years, this court finds no merit in the aforesaid submissions of the petitioner.

Careful perusal of the impugned order itself reveals that despite there being repeated correspondences by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Managing Committee of the society failed to superannuate the petitioner after his having obtained age of superannuation i.e. 65 years. Since direction was not complied with by the managing committee of the society, Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies was compelled to order superannuation of the petitioner, who admittedly at the time of passing of the order had attained the age of superannuation. Since during the pendency of the appeal, petitioner had already attained the age of 67 years and during this period of two years, he was allowed to work in the society, no prejudice, if any, can be said to have been caused to the petitioner.

Consequently, in view of the above, this court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the appellate authority and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, present petition fails and dismissed accordingly.