JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner, who is admittedly a seasonal employee of the Co-operative Cane Development Society Ltd., Bilari, Moradabad, is governed by the Regulations framed in exercise of power under Section 122 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, known as U.P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975. filed this writ petition with the following prayers :
"1. to issue an order, direction or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 not to interfere with the performance of the functioning of the petitioner as seasonal payment Clerk-cum-Cashier and further respondents be directed to pay the entire salary of the petitioner which is due and as and when it false due till the age of his retirement of 60 years already decided by the order dated 10th October, 1996 (Annexure-VIII) passed by Respondent No. 1.
2. to issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. to award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioner."
2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner, whose date of birth in accordance with the servie book is 29th July, 1938, was informed by the Secretary of the Society vide his letter dated 9th February, 1996, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this petition, that since the petitioner's date of birth according to service book is 29th July, 1938 and he will be completing 58 years of age on 28th July, 1996, which is the date of superannuation, therefore, he will be retired by the end of the month i.e. on 31st July, 1996. Petitioner, in the writ petition, has referred to Fundamental Rule, 1956, which is admittedly not applicable to the case of the petitioner as he is employee of Cane Co-operative Society. The Regulation 47 of U.P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975, which is applicable to the case of the petitioner is reproduced below so far as it is relevant for the present controversy:
"47. Compulsory retirement.--(a) The date of compulsory retirement of a member of the Cane Co-operative Service, other than the fourth class employees shall be the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement only under very special circumstances with the sanction of Cane Commissioner in the interest of the Cane Co-operative to be recorded in writing........"
3. Petitioner's further case is that he filed an application dated 24th March, 1996 addressed to the Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Cane Societies Federation Ltd., Lucknow praying therein that since the petitioner's superannuation is due on 31st July, 1996 and the petitioner is mentally and physically fit, therefore he sought an extension of two years service. This application has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The Secretary of the Co-operative Cane Development Ltd., Bilari recommended the case of the petitioner for extension of two years service. Since neither any orders were passed, nor any action has been taken on the recommendation and the petitioner was going to retire, therefore petitioner preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 22411 of 1996 before this Court, which has been disposed of by this Court on 20th July, 1996 with the following direction :
"The petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the respondent No. 1 to decide the same within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order is produced before him, provided that he has the competence to decide the same."
Dated: 20.7.1996 Sd/-
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J."
4. Pursuance to the aforesaid direction, the petitioner filed a representation along with a certified copy of the aforesaid order addressed to the District Cane Officer/Chairman, District Cane Service Authority, Moradabad, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. On the aforesaid representation filed by the petitioner, the District Cane Officer vide its order dated 10th October, 1996 passed an order that in view of the direction issued by this Court in the writ petition, referred to above, and the opinion of the D.G.C. Civil, Moradabad dated 24th August, 1996 and 26th August, 1996, the report of the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad was considered and the District Cane Service Authority, Moradabad in its meeting dated 9th September, 1996 have decided to retain the petitioner in the service of the society, till he attains the age of 60 years. The petitioner's further contended that he has submitted his joining report, but he was not allowed to join. It appears that thereafter the petitioner preferred a contempt petition before this Court. Further the case set up by the petitioner is that in spite of the aforesaid order passed by the District Cane Officer the petitioner has not been, either permitted to function on the post, or paid his salary and that is why this writ petition has been filed.
5. The respondents have filed an affidavit wherein they have Stated that according to the provision of Regulation 47 of U.P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975, member of service has been defined, which means full time employee of the cane union or federation, as the case may be, and it further says that the aforesaid definition will apply to seasonal employee also. Now the case set up by the petitioner is that since his representation permitting him to continue beyond 58 years up to the age of 60 years has been allowed by District Cane Officer pursuant to the resolution passed by the District Cane Service Authority Ltd., therefore, he has a right to continue till the age of 60 years. The aforesaid submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. A perusal of Regulation 47, quoted above, clearly demonstrates that an employee of the Society will be superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years. Extention beyond 58 years of age can be granted under very exception circumstances as the phrase used "with the sanction of the Cane Commissioner."
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents raised an objection that since the petitioner is a seasonal employee, he may not be permitted to continue in service without sanction of the Cane Commissioner in view of the amended Regulations as clarified by him (Annexure CA-2) dated 15th September, 1983, which included the definition of member of service.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri G.R. Jain has contended that the petitioner was working as Category IV employee, therefore, petitioner is entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years. Sri Jain further contended that the assertions to the contrary in the writ petition in paragraph Nos. 3 and 11 arc not correct. It is not disputed that petitioner was working as a seasonal Clerk, which is a Category III post. This assertion is further clear from petitioner's own admission in the writ petition.
8. Admittedly the petitioner has completed 60 years of age. Therefore, the relief regarding permitting the petitioner to function as a seasonal Clerk has become infructuous. The next plea that he should be paid salary for the two years beyond 31st July, 1996 as because of the respondents he could not be permitted to function. The petitioner further asserted that once the District Cane Officer, Moradabad has granted him continuance till he attains the age of 60 years by means of the order dated 10th October, 1996, the respondents are under the legal obligation to pay salary for that period to him.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Explanation of Regulation 47, referred to above, has Stated that since petitioner is a class-IV employee, therefore, he is hereby entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years. This Statement is self contradictory, inasmuch as in the writ petition it has been categorically Stated that the petitioner is Class-III employee and respondents have also Stated the same, therefore, the arguments that the petitioner is Class-IV employee is not supported either from the evidence on record, or from the arguments. The petitioner further contended that he has been granted extention by the order dated 10th October, 1996, therefore he is entitled to continue till the age of 60 years has to be dealt with.
10. Sri P.M.N. Singh and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Counsel appearing for the same party, contended through Sri P.M.N. Singh, that a bare reading of Regulation 47 of the Regulations will demonstrate that extension, if any, can be granted only with the sanction of the Cane Commissioner beyond the age of 58 hears. It is neither the case of the petitioner, nor any assertion to this effect has been made in the writ petition at any point of time that either before 31st July. 1996 or subsequent to that any acceptance had been granted by the Cane Commissioner to the extension granted by the District Cane Officer, which is annexed as Annexure 'B' to the writ petition. This fact has not been denied cither in the rejoinder affidavit, or during the course of arguments. In my opinion, the contention advanced on behalf of the respondents has some substance. If a statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, that has to be done in that manner alone. (AIR 1980 Supreme Court 303, Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone).
11. The impugned order dated 10th October, 1996 also does not refer to, nor States that any sanction has been obtained from the Cane Commissioner as required under Regulation 47 of the Regulations. In view of what has been Stated above, since there was no sanction of the Cane Commissioner, as required, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any salary.
12. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. The interim order/orders stands vacated. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.