2005 (1) TMI 695 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the pre-mature retirement of appellant as directed by the respondents was in order affirmed by Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the pre-mature retirement of the appellant.
2. Applicability of Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
3. Jurisdiction of the Additional Registrar to entertain the revision.
4. Competence of the State Government to entertain the revision application.
5. Adoption of service rules by the employer-society.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Pre-mature Retirement of the Appellant:
The appellant was prematurely retired by the employer under Rule 244(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, due to a continuous fall in work performance. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that Rule 244(2) was not applicable to the employer-society, and his service conditions were governed by Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966. The Additional Registrar allowed the revision, stating Rule 244(2) was inapplicable without the Registrar's approval. The State Government, however, set aside this decision, asserting the Additional Registrar had no jurisdiction.

2. Applicability of Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951:
The appellant contended that the service rules had no application as the employer had never decided to adopt them. However, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench noted that the Board of Directors had adopted a resolution making the service rules applicable to the society's employees. A notification by the Registrar affirmed that the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, were applicable, thus validating the use of Rule 244(2).

3. Jurisdiction of the Additional Registrar to Entertain the Revision:
The Secretary, Cooperative Department, found that the Additional Registrar lacked jurisdiction to hear the revision since the order was passed by an Administrator, not an officer subordinate to the Registrar. The High Court upheld this view, noting that the Additional Registrar exercised the delegated power of the Registrar, not the State Government, and thus, the revision before the State Government was maintainable.

4. Competence of the State Government to Entertain the Revision Application:
The appellant argued that once the delegated authority exercised the power of revision, it could not be exercised again by the original authority. The Division Bench clarified that under Section 128 of the Act, revisional power could be exercised by both the Government and the Registrar. The State Government's competence to entertain the revision was upheld, as the Registrar and the Government are distinct authorities with concurrent jurisdiction, not interchangeable.

5. Adoption of Service Rules by the Employer-Society:
The learned Single Judge held that the employer-society had adopted the service rules through a resolution dated 4.5.1977, and a subsequent notification by the Registrar made the CCA Rules applicable to the employees. This adoption was crucial in determining the applicability of Rule 244(2) for the appellant's pre-mature retirement.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellant's appeal, affirming that the State Government had the jurisdiction to entertain the revision application. The service rules were applicable to the appellant, and the pre-mature retirement under Rule 244(2) was deemed lawful. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.