SUDHIR NARAIN J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 10-11-1994 communicating the petitioner that be shall retire with effect from 31-1-95 on attaining the age of 58 years. ( 2 ) THE fact, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Cleric on 1st July. 1994 in District Co-operative Bank Limited, Deoria in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Committee of Management (hereinafter referred to as the Bank. The resolution indicated that the age of the petitioner shall be 60 years. Disciplinary proceeding were taken against the petitioner. He was suspended on 16-4-1995 by the Chairman Of the Bank. The petitioner was dismissed from service. He filed an appeal and the appeal was dismissed The petitoiner raised industrial dispute and the State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court It was registered as Case no 24 of 1965. ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the case before the Labour Court the petitioner and the management of the Bank entered into a compromise. A compromise application was filed before the Labour Court on 4th June, 1669 that the petitioner Shall be given fresh appointment The Labour court gave an Award on 10th June, l969 based on the aforesaid compromise in pursuance of the compromise, the petitioner was given a fresh appointment order appointing him as a Clerk. The compromise applcation has been annexeed as Annexurc- 3 to the writ petition. ( 4 ) THE services of the petitioner were again terminated on 18. 11. 1969 on the ground that the petitioner was on prodation for one year and his services were terminated This order was challenged and the Labour Court, on a reference made by the State Government, held that the order of termination dated 11. 11. 1969 was invalid and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service. The petitioner that he would on attaining the age of 28 years. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition. ( 5 ) I have beard Sri R. N. Ojba learned counsel for the petitioner and sri S. K Smgb, learned counsel for the respondent. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by U-P Co-operative Employees Service regulations, 1975. Regulation 24 provides for the date of retirement. The service Regulations, 1975 came into force on 6. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by U-P Co-operative Employees Service regulations, 1975. Regulation 24 provides for the date of retirement. The service Regulations, 1975 came into force on 6. 1. 1975. It provided the age of retirement of an employee as 58 years. Subsequently Regulation 24 was amended by Government Order No 432/xii-6-2-85-77 dated 7. 5. 83. The amended Regulation provides that where before commencement of U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1995,the Society had entered, with an employee, at the time of his appointment, into a contract whereby he is entitled to be retained in service after the date on which he attains tbc age of 58 years, the date of superanuation of such employee shall be determined in accordance with the terms of the said contract. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that there was an agreement at the time of appointment of the petitioner that the age of retirement of the petitioner shall be 60 years and in view of the Regulation 24 he is entitled to work till the age of 60 years. ( 8 ) THE petitioner has not filed any copy of the agreement regarding terms and conditions of service. He has annexed a copy of the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 1st July. 1954 and the resolution indicates that the petitioner shall retire at the age of 60 years. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent contendent that there was no contract relating to the terms and condition of service. In the resolution the age of retirement was indicated as at that time the age of retirement was 60 years after the enforcement of the Regulation it will be 58 years unless is a contract to the contrary. ( 10 ) IT is not necessary to decide this controversy as to whether the resolution itself amounts to a contract or the respondents shall be estopped from contending that the age of retirement is 58 years when it itself passed the resolution for retirement of the petitioner at age of 60 years. ( 10 ) IT is not necessary to decide this controversy as to whether the resolution itself amounts to a contract or the respondents shall be estopped from contending that the age of retirement is 58 years when it itself passed the resolution for retirement of the petitioner at age of 60 years. ( 11 ) THE real contreverse at the stage is as to whether the petitioner shall be entitled to the terms and condition which were indicated in the resolution date 1st July, 1954 even after the petitioner was dismissed from serivce and he was given a fresh appointment. The petitioner has not denied that he had entered into a compromise with the respondents on 4th Jane. 1969 and the compromise application was filed before the Labour Court The compromise application states that the petitioner shall be re-employed in service with effect from 10th June, 1969 and will remain on probation for a period of one year. Para 3 of the compromise application indicates that the appointment will be treated as re-appointment and the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wage, allowance etc. ( 12 ) THIS compromise was made part of the Award by the Labour Court and in pursuance of this compromise the petitioner was issued a fresh appointment letter on 10th June 1969 and he accepted appointment and submitted for joining It is clear from Annexure A to the counter affidavit. The petitioner, after this fresh appointment, cannot rely upon the resolution passed by the Committee of Management on 1st July, 1954 The age of retirement as given in Regulation is 58 years unless there is a contract is a contract providing for different age of superannuation. The terms and conditions mentions in the resolution dated 1st July, 1954 came to an end when the petitioner took fresh appointment. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon (6) FLR 755 1995-90) SC Labour Judgments 9-1 Virendra Pal Singh and others v District (Registrar. Co-operative Societies, Etah and others 1980 UPLBEC 202, and allahabad District Co-operaiive Bank Limited v. Lalji Srivastava (1994, 3 uplbbc wherin it was held that if before coming into operation of Regulation 1975 the Society bad entered into any contract with an employee on the date of his appointment whereby he was entitled to continue beyond 58 yeras, shall not apply. ( 14 ) IN the present case the petitioner having accepted fresh appointment and there being no such terms and conditions regarding the age of retirement in it, he cannot rely up on the resolution dated 1st July, 1954, ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further placed relirance upon upendra Nath Base v. Vindeshwari, AIR 1916 Cal 843, where in it was held tbat a compromise is an agreement to put an end to terminate or avoid litigation and in such a case the conisderation which each party receives is the settlement of dispute. The real tconsideration is not the sacrifice of right, but the adandonment of a claim. ( 16 ) THE services of the petitioner we terminated by the Samiti. The matter was referred to the Labour Court. The petitioner entered into compromise and in pursuance of tbe said compromise another appointment letter was issued to the petitioner with new and conditions. He cannot rely upon the terms and conditions of old contract on the principle laid down under Section 62 of the Contract Act which provides that if the parties to a contract agree to substitute new contract for it, or to rescind pr alter it, tbe original contract need not be performed. In view of the above there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. .