1987 (11) TMI 401 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Rule 200 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules.
2. Preservation of rights and privileges of employees before 1-1-1974.
3. Qualification requirements for promotion under the new rules.
4. Age of superannuation for employees appointed before 1-1-1974.
5. Applicability of writ petitions against Cooperative Societies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Rule 200 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules:
The primary issue in this judgment is the interpretation of Rule 200, which was referred to a Full Bench due to an "apparent conflict" between two Division Bench rulings. Rule 200 states: "Nothing in these Rules or any rules made thereunder shall operate to debar from enjoyment of any person or employee of any right or privilege of emoluments to which he is entitled by the term of any contract or agreement or conditions of service subsisting between such person and a Co-operative Society on the date on which these Rules shall come into force."

2. Preservation of Rights and Privileges of Employees Before 1-1-1974:
The Court examined whether Rule 200 saved all rights accrued to employees before 1-1-1974, including the right to earn promotion based on old bye-laws and rules. It was contended that only the "right or privilege of emoluments" earned before 1-1-1974 is saved. The Court concluded that Rule 200 preserves all rights which the existing employees were entitled to before 1-1-1974 and also the privilege of emoluments under the earlier bye-laws or rules.

3. Qualification Requirements for Promotion Under the New Rules:
The Court addressed whether employees appointed before 1-1-1974 could be promoted without meeting the new qualifications prescribed by the 1974 rules. It was held that Rule 200 saves the existing employees' right to promotion to one higher post without reference to the new qualifications, provided they were qualified under the old rules or bye-laws. However, if no qualification was fixed prior to 1-1-1974, promotion can only be effected in accordance with the new rules after 1-1-1974.

4. Age of Superannuation for Employees Appointed Before 1-1-1974:
The Court considered whether employees appointed before 1-1-1974 could continue in service until the age of 60 as provided in the old bye-laws, or only until the age of 58 as per the new rules. It was held that the right to continue in service until the age of 60 is preserved under Rule 200. The circulars issued by the Registrar compelling retirement at 58 were quashed.

5. Applicability of Writ Petitions Against Cooperative Societies:
The Court reiterated that no writ will lie against a Cooperative Society governed by the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, as these societies are not statutory bodies and do not have deep and pervasive State control. The management of these societies is under the effective control of a committee elected by the members. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed on this ground.

Judgment Summary:
The Full Bench provided a comprehensive interpretation of Rule 200, preserving the rights and privileges of employees appointed before 1-1-1974. The Court clarified that:
1. All rights which the existing employees were entitled to on or before 1-1-1974 are preserved.
2. Pre-existing privileges of emoluments alone are saved under the rule.
3. Existing employees are entitled to promotion to one higher post without reference to the qualifications prescribed by the new rules, provided they were qualified under the old rules or bye-laws.
4. If no qualification was fixed prior to 1-1-1974, promotion can only be effected in accordance with the new rules after 1-1-1974.
5. A plea for relaxation is only a claim of privilege and is not protected under Rule 200. Relaxation granted before 1-1-1974 can be pressed into service relying on this rule.

The Court quashed the circulars issued by the Registrar compelling retirement at 58 and directed the Registrar to issue fresh circulars incorporating the principles stated in the judgment. The petitions and appeal were disposed of accordingly, with specific directions to consider the claims afresh based on the Court's interpretation of Rule 200.