Judgment M. B. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) IT will be proper to dispose of the above noted two writ petitions by this common order as the legal point involved in both the writ petitions is the same and is in respec! of pre-mature retirment in a Central Co- operative bank. The point is also as to what is the age of retirement in a central Co-operative Bank. ( 2 ) FIRST I will refer to the relevant rules in respect of power of the management to retire prematurely its employees and then I will refer to the facts of each case. ( 3 ) AJMER Central Co-operative- Bank Ltd. Ajmer as well as Bharatpur central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur are co-opertive societies registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, the Act) and they have their respective bye-laws, A bipartite settlement took place on July 31, 1980 in between the management of the Apex Co-operative Bank, Jaipur and the Officers Association and according to cluse 9 of the aforesaid settlement/agreement so far at the age of retirement is concerned, it was agreed that the age of retirement shall be 58 years. The said clause reads as under : it is not disputed that the said settlement/agreement was arrived at In accordance with clause 13 (2) of the said agreement/settlement, it was also agreed that in case of dispute on interpretation the decision of the Administrator/chairman of the Apex Bank will be final. A question in respect of retirement age was referred to the Chairman of the Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank ltd. Jaipur which is the Apex Body of the Co-operative Banks in Rajasthan and the Chairman took a decision on March 7, 1983. The Chairman in para 2 of the aforesaid decision which was to be final, referred to the relevant clauses of bipartite settlement/agreement dated July 31, 1980 and in para 3 of its decision said that it will not be proper to have the recourse to the aforesaid cluase 9 and 10 retire an employee after attaining the age of 55 years after giving three months notice in normal circumstances, and the recourse to the aforesaid clause regarding premature retirement in extraordinary circumstances. The relevant clause 3 of the decision of the Chairman is as under : there were subsequent bipartite settlements between the Administrator of the apex Co-operative Bank and the Officers Association and one of the said settlements took place on August 11, 1987 in which it was agreed upon that the other facilities will be provided to the Members of the Association and other employees of the Bank in the same manner as poovided earlier meaning thereby that the age of retirement shall continue to be the same as 58 years. A similar bipartite agreement is said to have been arrived at on July 12, 1991 but so far as age of retirement is concerned, again the rule/order of the bipartite settlement dated July 31, 1980 contiuned to be in force. ( 4 ) SO far as Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank is concerned, it is also the case that the Regulations have been framed and under Regulation 15 (e)which is regarding the age of retirment of the employees a similar provision is made. The said Regulation has been reproduced at para 8 of the reply to the writ petition (No. 2609/89 -G. P. Mishra v. State of Rajasthan and others ). It reads as under ;"15 (e) Every employee shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years. An employee may however be called upon by the Bank to retire earlier if he considered medically unfit to continue in service. The services of an employee who acquires the age of 55 years-shall be terminable at a notice of 3 months on either side, where it appears desirable in the interest of the Bank the Board shall have the discretion to re-employ a person who retire under this rule for such period but not beyond the age of 60 years and on such terms and conditions as the Board may determine in each case". ( 5 ) THE Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur gave Award dated December 11, 1962 and April 28, 1965 in respect of Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank Ltd and its employees and in respect of other Co-operative Banks in Rajasthan including the Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and in chapter-XIII of the said Award the Tribunal said :"xiii AGE OF RETIREMENT. Under the existing rules, the age of retirement in all the Co-operative banks has been fixed 58 years. The Union did not press this demand. Under the existing rules, the age of retirement in all the Co-operative banks has been fixed 58 years. The Union did not press this demand. Accordingly, a workman on reaching the age of 58 years shall retire from the service. The Tribunal has however, directed that existing system of retirement shall not be changed by the Banks hereafter". It is the case of the respondents that the aforesaid Award is not applicable so far as Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank and Bharatpur Central Co-operative bank are concerned. In my opinion, there will be no dispute that as per the bipartite settlement dated July 31, 1980 the age of retirement in respect of the employees including that of the officers of the Centra! Co-operative Banks generally is 58 years, but an officer could be prematurely retired after his attaining the age of 55 years after giving him three months notice but that recourse could only be had in case it was felt necessary to retire an employee in the interest of the Bank. To my mind, the aforesaid power is analogous to the power of compulsory retirement of the government employees as contained in rule 244 (2) of RSR, which power can be exercised in public interest. As per clause 13 (2) of the agreement dated July 31, 1980, the matter was referred to the Chairman of the Apex Bank for his clarification and his clarification dated March 7, 1983 has been referred to in the earlier part of this order and it cannot be disputed that the power to premature retirement could only be in extra-ordinary circumstances and only to get rid of undesirable employees and only in cases where it was not in the interest of the Bank to keep such an employee of the Bank in service after his attaining the age of 55 years. The said power could not be exercised in ordinary circumstances merely because an employee has reached the age of 55 years, I am of the opinion that so far as age of retirement is concerned in both the Banks, namely Ajmer Central Co-opearative bank Ltd, and Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. it was 58 years and an employee could be retired after attaining the age of 55 years but only in extraordinary circumstances where it was thought that it would not be in the interest of Bank to keep such an employee in service after attaining the age of 55 years an order of premature retirement could be made in respect of that employee. ( 6 ) THE respondent Banks, as said earlier, are Co-operative Societies registered under the act. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 148 of the Act, the Government of Rajasthan has made the rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules) and under Rule 41 (1) of the Rules the service conditions of the employees of co-operative societies shall be as specified by the Ragistrar, There is no meterial on record whether any Regulations laying down the service conditions for bharatpur Central Co-operative Band Ltd, were framed or not, but it is the case of the respondent even in so far as Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank ltd, is concerned that the Regulations laying down the service conditions were framed and a reference to Regulation 15 (e) has already been made. It can therefore be said that the said regulations must have been framed only after it must have been specfied by the Ragistrar. At any rate, it can be said that the power is vested in the Registrar to specify the service conditions of the employees of the co-operative societies. Earlier the age of retirement in respect of employees of State Government was also 55 years, but it was raised from 55 years to 58 years and while doing so, the State Government issued a memorandum No. F. 1 (1) (12)/fd/ (Gr. 2)/77 dated September 28. 1984 and sent the same to all the Heads of the Departments making applicable on State Statutory Bodies/public Sector Underatakings/co-operative Societies municipalities/panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads etc. 2)/77 dated September 28. 1984 and sent the same to all the Heads of the Departments making applicable on State Statutory Bodies/public Sector Underatakings/co-operative Societies municipalities/panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads etc. It was to the following effect :"the undersigned directed to refer to the subject mentioned above and to say that age of superannuation of Government employees other than class IV has been raised from 55 years to 58 years and in respect of class IV employees 58 to 60 years with immediate effect. A copy of the amendments made in RSR is enclosed. Government has further decided that the aforesaid decision taken for Government servants may slso be made applicable to the employees of Panchayat Samities and Zila parishad, Muncipalities State Statutory Bodies, State Public sector Undertakings, Co-operative Bodies and Companies and co-operative Societies, where the age of their retirement is at par with the State Government employees. ". In my opinion the aforesaid order is not relevant for the present purpose because admittedly the age of superannuation is so far as the employees of the Co-operative Banks is 58 years and the said decision was to only apply to those where the age of retirement was earlier 55 years and raised to 58 years, So far as the employees of the Central Co-operative Banks are concerned, the age of retirement was already 58 years and as said earlier only in extra-ordinary circumstances and in public interest, a person could be retired prematurily after attaining the age of 55 years after giving him three months notice pay in lieu thereof. ( 7 ) BUT as said earlier, the power is vested undes Rule 41 of the Rules the Registrar to specify the service conditions of the employees of the Co-operative societies and under those powers the Registrar could specify the service conditions of the employees of the Central Co-operative Bank. The Registrar under his order dated July 17, 1989 has specified the age of retirement as 58 years for all the employees of the Co-operative Societies except that of class IV employees in whose case the age of retirement is 60 years. Under its order no. The Registrar under his order dated July 17, 1989 has specified the age of retirement as 58 years for all the employees of the Co-operative Societies except that of class IV employees in whose case the age of retirement is 60 years. Under its order no. F. 15/7/shiv Rules/80 dated July 17, 1989 the Registrar Co-operative societies in exercise of his powers under sub-rule (1) of rule 41 of the Rules has laid down the service conditions in respect of the employees of Co-operative societies and a perusal of the same will show that the maximum age of the officer of the Co-operative Societies is 58 years. It will be proper to read paras 2 and 3 of the aforesaid order which are as under:-"it will be clear from the aforesaid extracted portion of the order dated July 17, 1989, that the Registrar has specified that the maximum age of retirement of the employees and officers of Co-oprative Societies is 58 years, After reaching the age of 58 years, one could have, if it was necessary been re-employed on the terms mentioned in the aforesaid order after sanction of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. Para 3 of t he aforesaid order is more important in so far as the age of pre-mature retirement is concerned, in case of allegations of lethargy, and continuous serious allegations in the APARs, an employee/officer could be prematurely retired after completing 20 years service or 50 years age, but such a decision to retire an employee/officer prematurely could not be taken by the Board of Directors after approval of the Registrar. Therefore, it will be clear that the Registrar has laid down the service conditions of the employees of the co-operative societies including the age of ratirement, but provision for premature retirement after completion of 20 years service and 50 years age has also been made and it could only be done in a case of serious allegations against an employee in order to get rid of such an inefficient employees in the interest of the Banks. I am of the opinion that even after the aforesaid order, even an order to retire an officer of the Co-operative Society including the Bank could only be made after receiving the approval of the Registrar. A reference has already been made to the bipartite settlement dated July 31, 1980. I am of the opinion that even after the aforesaid order, even an order to retire an officer of the Co-operative Society including the Bank could only be made after receiving the approval of the Registrar. A reference has already been made to the bipartite settlement dated July 31, 1980. If the aforesaid order of the Registrar is looked into alongwith the aforesaid clarification of settlement and also alongwith the decision of the Chairman of the Apex Bank which decision was given by the virtue of the powers vested in him under clause 13 (2) of the bipartite settlement, there remains no doubt that generally the age of retirement of an employee of the co-operative society of the Bank was 58 years but an officer/employee could be retired prematurily after attaining the age of 55 years after a three months notice in case his work was not found satisfactory and to retire him prematurily was in the interest of the Bank and that power has to be exercised only in extra-ordinary circumstances as said earlier. " ( 8 ) I will now proceed to examine both the cases in the light of the aforesaid position of law as in both the cases orders of premature retirements in exercise of the powers conferred under clause 9 of the bipartite settlement dated July 31, 1980 have been made. But, before I proceed to deal with the individual cases, it will be necessary to deal with preliminary objection that the Central Co-operative Bank is not state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. Another preliminary objection raised is that there is alternative remedy under Section 75 of the Act. None of the aforesaid contentions has any force. Another preliminary objection raised is that there is alternative remedy under Section 75 of the Act. None of the aforesaid contentions has any force. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Phool chand v. State of Raj, and thers, RLR 1985-365, has held that the Central co-operative Bank Bharatpur is an authority and instrumentality of the State and as such it is state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and the existence of alternative remedy is not absolute bar to the exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, moteso, as shall be presently shown, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and the petitioners cannot be non-suited on the ground of existence of alternative remedy under Section 75 of the Act. ( 9 ) I will now proceed to deal with individual cases. G. P. MISHRA (S. . B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2609/89 ). ( 10 ) HAVING entered initially in the clerical cadre on October 17,1960 in the Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , a co-operative society. In due course of time, Shri Mishra was promoted to the post of c class officer on december 26, 1985. The said promotion was after regular selection by the dpc. After the promotion as aforesaid, he was appointed in the Head office of the Bank as Manager (Development) and continued to work as such till April 12, 1989, when he was transferred to the Beawar branch of the bank. He was an active member of the Officers Association of the Co-operative banks in Rajasthan and was also elected as President of Ajmer unit of akhil Rajasthan Sahakari Adhikari Association and had been continuing as such for the last several years. In that capacity he had to raise several issues on behalf of the members of the Association. The date of birth of the petitioner is June 2, 1934 and therefore, he would have attained the age of 58 years on June l,1992. He was retired prematurely under order dated June 28, 1989, under clause 9 of the bipartite settlement dated July 31, 1980 and in lieu of three months notice, an amouut of Rs. 14,765,40 P by pay-order of the same date was paid. He was retired prematurely under order dated June 28, 1989, under clause 9 of the bipartite settlement dated July 31, 1980 and in lieu of three months notice, an amouut of Rs. 14,765,40 P by pay-order of the same date was paid. ( 11 ) THE petitioner Shri Mishra has challenged the aforesaid premature retirement, Inter-alia on the grounds that the same is without jurisdiction having been made by the Managing Director when he being Manager, a c grade officer, could only be retired by the Board of the Directors ; the order of his pre-mature retirement is not in the interest of the Bank and has been made arbitrarily and malafide and it is stagimatic in nature. One of the grounds has also been raised that even if he attained the age of 55 years and assuming that he could be retired on June 30, 1989 and not on June 28, 1989, as RSR are applicable to his case. ( 12 ) THE counsel for respondents stated and the case of the contesting respondents is that the executive committee of the Bank in exercise of the powers of Board of Directors vested in it be bye-laws which is competent to take decision of compulsory retirement- The Managing Director of the Bank has passed the order in pursuance of the above decision of the executive committee. The service record of G. P. Mishra shows his negligence and irregularties committed by him in the working and many warnings were communicated to him vide Annrs. R2/1 to R2/5. It is not disputed that Mishra was also elected as President of Rajasthan Sahkari Adhikari Association, but so far as malafide of the Managing Director of the Bank respondent No. 3 Shri kanchan lal Meena is concerned, it has been stated in Para 6 of the reply that he was not holding any office when the incidents mentioned in para 6 of the writ petition had taken place and there is no question of his being annoyed. So far as giving various notices to the petitioner is concerned, the case of the contesting respondents is that they were given because functioning of Shri Mishra was found to be much wanting and needed calling for his explanation and warnings were rightly given to him. He was transferred to beawar Branch of the Bank in the exigencies of the work and not to victimise him. He was transferred to beawar Branch of the Bank in the exigencies of the work and not to victimise him. A reference to Regulation 15 (e) of the Regulations of the respondent bank regarding age of retirement has already been made in the earlier part of this order while dealing with the question of retirement age and the case of the contesting respondents is that it was desirable in the interest of the bank. According to the respondents under it also after one attains the age of 55 years, his service could be terminated at three months notice on either side. ( 13 ) TT is also the case of the contesting respondents that it was the executive committee of the Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. in whom the powers of the Board of Directors were vested who had taken the decision to retire Shri Mishra prematurely. ( 14 ) IT has already been said in The earlier part of this order as to when re-course to clause 9 of the bipartite settlement/agreement dated July 31, 1980 or even to clause 15 (e) of the Regulations could be taken. Suffice it to say that though a power is vested to compulsorily retire an officer or an employee after he attains the age of 55 years or even, after he attains the age of 50 years, or completing 20 years service, but the said power cannot be exercised in the ordinary circumstances and it has to be exercised in extra-ordinary circumstances to weed out dead-wood and to get rid of lithargic and inefficient persons after giving three months notice or three months notice pay in lieu thereof. It has alread been said earlier that the Registrar has power to lay down service conditions of the employees of the Co-operative Societies and the Registrar under his order dated July 17,1980 in exercise of his powers under rule 41 of the Rules had laid down the service conditions for all the employee of the Co-operative Societies laying down 58 years as maximum age for retirement but also laying down the condition for premature retirement after one reached the age of 50 years or completed 20 years service, but that could only be done not only in the interest of the Bank as said earlier, but also after approval of the Registrar. In the instant case, it will be seen from the resolution dated December 26, 1972 of the Board of Directors of the bharatpur Central Co-operative Banks that at item No. 2 the question of conferring power to the executive committee was considered and a decision was taken to confer the power to executive committee of the Bank to suspend and terminate the services of its employees. On June 20, 1989, the Executive committee of the respondent Bank decided to compulsorily retire Shri Mishra on attaining the age of 55 years It will appear from resolution No. 5, a copy of which was produced for perusal of this court, that the entire service record of Shri Mishra was seen and then a decision was taken to compulsorily retire him. It will further appear that the matter was also placed before the Board of Directors in its meeting held on August 1, 1986 and the Board of Directors under its resolution No. 6 put its seal on the decision of the Executive committee dated June 26, 1989 to compulsorily retire Shri Mishra. Therefore, so far as argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was made by the managing Director and as such is without jurisdiction, has no force. The power of the Board of Directors have been conferred on the Executive Committee so far as the appointment and removal of employees of the Bank is concerned and the Executive Committee has taken a decision and the Managing director only under order dated June 28, 1989 had issued the orders of premature retirement in compliance with the resolution/decision of the executive committee dated June 20, 1989 to compulsorily retire him. That apart, as said earlier the Board of Directors approved the action taken. But i have alrady said in the earlier part of this order that one could only be retired after attaining the age of 50 years, on completing 20 years, service after obtaining the approval of the Registrar and in this case no approval of the Registrar to compulsorily retire the petitioner Shri Mishra was taken. It will be seen from annr. It will be seen from annr. 35, of September, 1989, a communication from the Joint Registrar addressed to the Managing Director of the Ajmer Central co-operative Bank Ltd, that so far as resolution No. 6 dated August 1, 1989 of the Board of Directors is concerned, to which reference has already been made in the earlier part of this order, which had approved the resolution No. 6 of the Executive Committee dated June 20, 1989, under which the order to compulsorily retire Shri Mishra was made by the Managing Director, it was said that prior approval of the Registrar to prematurely retire an officer was necessary and no such approval was taken. A reference was also made to rule 36 (7) of the bye-laws of the Bank, Even if the said rule is not applicable, in my opinion, the Registrar has laid down the conditions by virtue of his powers vested in him, it was necessary that prior approval of the registrar to compulsorily retire Mishra should have been taken, which was not taken even assuming the order of compulsory retirement of Shri Mishra under clause 9 of the lipartite settlement dated July 31, 1980 and under regulation 15 (e) of the Regulations of the Bank could be made in the interest of the Bank to get rid of a person whose service record was not good, the order of compulsory retirement of Shri Mishra cannot stand in view of the fact that it was made without approval of the Registrar and even thareafter the Registrar never approved the action of the Executive Committee Board of Director, Shri Mishra as per the date of his retirement is due to retire on june 30, 1992 and therefore instead of ordering that he should be reinstated, i am of the opinion that while setting aside the order of his compulsory retirement, the respondents be directed to pay him his salary alongwhith other allowances and other service benefits upto the age of 58 years. PRAHLAD SINGH INDOLIA (Writ Petition No. 10/92 ). ( 15 ) THE date of birth of petitioner Prahlad Singh Indolia is September 1, 1936 and he would attain the age of supreannuation on August 30, 1994. He was appointed on March 26, 1971 can Inspector in the Bharatpur central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur. PRAHLAD SINGH INDOLIA (Writ Petition No. 10/92 ). ( 15 ) THE date of birth of petitioner Prahlad Singh Indolia is September 1, 1936 and he would attain the age of supreannuation on August 30, 1994. He was appointed on March 26, 1971 can Inspector in the Bharatpur central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur. While he was working as branch Manager at Bhusawar Branch of the Bank a penalty of removal from service was imposed on him under order dated January 8, 1983 after holding an inquiry under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The petitioner Prahlad Singh Indolia challenged the aforesaid order of removal from service by filing. S. B. Civil writ Petition No. 318/1983 and this Court under its order dated September 13, 1990 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated January 8, 1983 under which the penalty of removal was imposed and the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges and it was directed that he shall be reinstated forthwith with all the benefits as early as possible, but in no case later than six months. The petitioner Indolia reported for duty on October 27, 1990, but as per his case he was not allowed to join and he filed contempt petition in this court which was registered as Contempt, Petition No. 268/91 and notice was issued of that case on August 30,1991. The respondent bank also preferred Special Appeal No. 259/91 (Bharatpur Central Co-operative bank Ltd. v. Prahlad Singh Indolia) in this court. The said Special appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on December 17, 1991. After the decision dated September 13, 1990 and before the orders in the Special Appeal, though the petitioner was allowed to join but benefit of pay fixation was not given to him. The impugned notice dated October 26, 1990 (annr. 1) was served on the petitioner intimating the petitioner that his services are no longer required after attaining the age of 55 years and he shall stand retired prematurely after three months of the notice. The petitioner challenged the notice Annr. 1 in this Court and this Court had stayed the operation of Annexure-1 dated October 26, 1991. ( 16 ) THE petitioner has challenged the aforesaid notice Annr. The petitioner challenged the notice Annr. 1 in this Court and this Court had stayed the operation of Annexure-1 dated October 26, 1991. ( 16 ) THE petitioner has challenged the aforesaid notice Annr. 1 under which he has been intimated that he shall stand retired after three months of of the notice, inter alia on the ground that he had filed a represenation on november 12, 1991 to the Bank, hut to no result, the respondent Bank has adopted the method of pick and choose and the petitioner is not being retired as a matter of policy,; there was no material to form opinion that it was in the interest of the Bank to retire the petitioner prematurely; it has been made because of success of the petitioner in the earlier writ petition and setting aside of the earlier termination order and because the petitioner moved a contempt petition ; the order is against the order of the Registrar as no prior approval was taken. ( 17 ) THE writ petition is contested on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the decision to retire the petitioner has been taken on account of policy decision taken by the Bank in order to improve the financial position of the Bank and that in compliance with the directions given by the Registrar, co-operative Societies under his D O. letter dated July 31, 1991. The Bank has been in continuous losses, so much so, that its accumulated losses as on july 30, 1991 have gone upto Rs. 355. 95 lacs. The band and doubtful debts as assessed on June 29, 1991 have reached to the astronomical figure of rs. 870 lacs and the Bank has been giving salaries and other establishment expenses to the staff to the tune of Rs. 80 lacs per annum. It was therefore decided that it shall do away with the service of the employees who are in excess as per the Registrar in the above referred D. O, letter. It is further the case of the respondent Bank that it will do away with the services of 58 employees in all either by taking them into confidence by persuation by way of retrenchment and by way of compulsory retirement. The decision to compulsory retire the petitioner has been taken in the larger interest of the Bank. It is further the case of the respondent Bank that it will do away with the services of 58 employees in all either by taking them into confidence by persuation by way of retrenchment and by way of compulsory retirement. The decision to compulsory retire the petitioner has been taken in the larger interest of the Bank. Such a power is vested in the Bank in view of the bipartite settlement dated July 31, 1980. ( 18 ) WHILE dealing with the case of compulsory retirement of another petitioner Shri G. P. Mishra in the earlier part of this order, it has been held by me that the age of retirement is 58 years, but the Bank can retire an employee after he attains the age of 55 years or even 50 years and after completing 20 years service in the interest of the Bank. In the instant case it will be seen that the petitioner Prahlad Singh Indolia was appointed in the year 1971, he was removed from service by imposing a penalty of removal in the year 1983 and he was out of employment from January 8, 1983 to November 19, 1990 and from January, 1983 to November, 1990 there was no service record of his performance on the basis of which it could be said that his performance was such that it will not be in the interest of the Bank to keep him in service and it is not the case of the respondents that it was because of his inefficiency or for any other reason that a decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was taken but the case of the respondents Bank is that the decision was taken as a matter of policy to improve the financial position of the Bank. In my opinion, the decision appears to have been taken not bonafide but arbitrarily. So far as the case of the respondents that the decision was taken to implement the policy decision to get rid of many employees, it appears that so far as the aforesaid policy decision is concerned, it does not appear that any seniority list was prepared or the d grade officers or other employees of the respondent Bank. It does not appear -that any committee was appointed to examine the service record and to dispense with the services of its employees. It does not appear -that any committee was appointed to examine the service record and to dispense with the services of its employees. No doubt it appears that financial position of the bank was in a precarious condition and as per the inspection report it was found that some staff is in excess of the need and so far as d grade officers are concerned, there are 36 sanctioned posts, whereas 34 wre working and there was need of one 20 d grade officers, because there are only 14 branches of the Bank. It was suggested that a re-assessment and re-considertion of the sanctioned posts be considered and none of the vacant posts should be filled. A statement was also included in which the position of the vacant posts was given and in case of d grade officers, out of 36 sanctioned ppsts. 34 were filled and two posts were lying vacant. It will therefore appear from the aforesaid report also that it was said that the vacant post should not be filled and a policy decision should be taken to reduce the sanctioned strength not only in respect of d grade officers, but also in respect of others. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was junior most amongst officers and even if a policy decision would haven been taken to reduce the strength as a result of which necessity might have arisen to dispense with the services of some employees, including. d grade officers, principle or Last come, first go should have been followed. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondents will show that some-policy decision was taken, though none has been filed, to do away with the services of 58 employees and further that the Bank has also retired an officer and two class IV employees in accordance with the aforesaid policy decision, but neither the names of the officer nor the names of two class IV employees have been given. A perusal of the rejoinder filed by the petitioner will show that the petitioner has come out with a case in the rejoinder that there are 14 branches of the Bank and out of them only 12 officers are working. A perusal of the rejoinder filed by the petitioner will show that the petitioner has come out with a case in the rejoinder that there are 14 branches of the Bank and out of them only 12 officers are working. One Shri Bhagwan Singh though not promoted as branch Managar, has been allowed to work as Branch Manager and at nadbai after the retirement of Shri Naraia Tiwari and Pooran Singh (Supervisor) has been posted and the post of Supervisor is lower than the post, of Branch Manager. It is also stated that recently one Shri Kasliwal visited bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank to inspect the Bank and in the inspection report he has said that as per the sanctioned strength of the Bank still many posts including 2 posts of officers are lying vacant. ( 19 ) AFTER haying gone through the material on record, it does not appear that the decision of pre-mature retirement of the petitioner has been taken as a matter of policy and it appear to have been taken arbitrarily because the petitioner had challenged the removal from his services and has also filed contempt petition. When the decision to retire ,a person is taken as a policy matter, a seniority list of the persons is prepared and it is exhibited on the notice Board and as said earlier, no list has been prepared and the principle of last come first go has not been followed. So far as clause 9 of the bipartite settlement dated July 31,. 1980 or for that matter regulations are concerned I have already said that it could only be in the public interest and admittedly there could not be any service record of the petitioner to show that he was inefficient and it is not the case of the respondent Bank that the petitioner has been served with the notice of retirement prematurely after attaining the age of 55 years on the ground of inefficiency or lithargy or for any other reason that it will not be in the interest of the Bank to keep him in service. ( 20 ) CONSEQUENTLY, in my opinion order/notice Annr. ( 20 ) CONSEQUENTLY, in my opinion order/notice Annr. 1,dated October 26,1991 is arbitrary and not in accordance with law and appears to have been issued in colourble exercise of the powers conferred under clause 9 of the bipartite settlement dated July 31, 1980 and not for the purpose, for which the said clause has been used. It is also bad because no prior approval of the Registrar has been taken, ( 21 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I hereby allow both these writ petitions. So far as the S. B. Civil Writ Petition No 2609/89-G. P,-Mishra v. State of Rajasthan and others is concerned, the same is allowed and the other Annr. 26 dated June 28, 1989 is set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service till he aittains the age of 58 years, but because he is due to retire shortly i. e. on June 30, 1992, I will not order for his reinstatement, but direct the respondents to pay him salary alongwith other allowances and other benefits upto the age of 58 years: Any amount which has been paid to the petitioner on his compulsory retirement shall be adjusted and he will be paid the balance amount. The petitioner G. P. Mishra shall be entitled to get the cost from the Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, which is assessed at Rs. 1,000/- S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 10/92 Prahtad Singh Indolia v. State of Rajasthan and others is allowed and the notice/order Annr. 1 dated October 26, 1991 is set aside. The petitioner was allowed to continue during the pendency of the writ petition and he will continue to be in service. The aforesaid notice/order dated October 26, 1991 will have no effect. Petitioner Prahlad Singh Indolia will also get Rs. l,000/-as costs from Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur. Writ petition allowed.