Employees are governed by the retirement age prescribed on their date of retirement.

The appellants were employees of the Puducherry Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, a co-operative society registered under the Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act.

Their service conditions were governed by the Subsidiary Regulations Governing the Service Conditions of Employees of Puducherry Co-operative Urban Bank Limited.

Clause 35(1) originally prescribed a retirement age of 58 years.

By proceedings dated 25 August 2010, the Registrar amended the regulation and enhanced the retirement age to 60 years.

Subsequently, on the Bank’s proposal, the Registrar issued proceedings dated 28 January 2021 restoring the retirement age to 58 years with effect from 1 April 2021.

The appellants challenged the application of the reduced retirement age in W.P. Nos. 17194 and 17181 of 2023.

The writ petitions were dismissed on 4 October 2023, leading to the present intra-court appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The Court recorded that R. Ganapathy retired in October 2023 and V. Gunasekaran retired in December 2024, when the applicable retirement age was 58 years.

Whether the appellants were entitled to continue in service until attaining 60 years, pursuant to the 2010 amendment enhancing the retirement age under Clause 35(1) of the Subsidiary Regulations.

Whether the 2021 amendment restoring the retirement age to 58 years with effect from 1 April 2021 was applicable to the appellants’ retirements.

Whether the dismissal of the writ petitions by the Single Judge warranted appellate interference.

The Court applied the provisions of the Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act and the Subsidiary Regulations Governing the Service Conditions of Employees of Puducherry Co-operative Urban Bank Limited.

Under Clause 35(1), as amended from time to time, the retirement age was initially 58 years, enhanced to 60 years by the Registrar’s proceedings dated 25 August 2010, and subsequently restored to 58 years with effect from 1 April 2021 by the amendment dated 28 January 2021.

The governing principle was that an employee’s applicable retirement age is determined by the service regulation in force on the date of retirement, absent any legally enforceable right to the earlier or more beneficial provision.

The Court accepted that the retirement age had been enhanced to 60 years in 2010 but noted that the regulation was lawfully amended again in 2021, restoring the age of retirement to 58 years from 1 April 2021.

Since both appellants retired after that effective date—Ganapathy in October 2023 and Gunasekaran in December 2024—the applicable service condition on the dates of their respective retirements prescribed 58 years.

Consequently, they could not claim the benefit of the superseded 60-year retirement age.

The Single Judge had therefore correctly applied the Puducherry co-operative service regulations, and no ground for appellate interference was established.

The orders dismissing W.P. Nos. 17194 and 17181 of 2023 were confirmed, and W.A. Nos. 420 and 421 of 2024 were dismissed.

As the appellants had already retired, the respondents were directed to settle their eligible terminal and retirement benefits as expeditiously as possible.

No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.