M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18. 6. 2001 annexure-2 to the writ petition. By that order the petitioner has been retired at the age of 58 years w. e. f. 31. 7. 2001. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was Branch Manager in the service of the District co-operative Bank, Mahoba. He has claimed that he has right to continue till the age of 60 years. ( 3 ) IN this connection Regulation 24 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies employees Service Regulations, 1975 states as follows :"the date of superannuation from service of an employee of a co-operative society shall be ; (a) in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years, if he is appointed to a post in category i, II or III : provided that, where, before commencement of the Uttar Pradesh co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, 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 the age of 58 years, the provisions of this sub-clause shall not apply and the date of superannuation of such employee shall be determined in accordance with the terms of the said contract; (b) in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years, if he is appointed to a post in category IV. " ( 4 ) CLAUSE (a) Regulation 24 clearly states that retirement age is 58 years. However, the proviso to clause (a) states that where before the commencement of these Regulations of 1975 the Society has entered with an employee at the time of his appointment into a contract whereby he was entitled to remain in service after 58 years, then the employee can continue in service in accordance with that contract. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner claims the benefit of the proviso to regulation 24 (a ). We are not in the agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have not been shown any contract between the respondent Bank and the petitioner which was executed at the time of his appointment stating that the petitioner can continue beyond 58 years. We are not in the agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have not been shown any contract between the respondent Bank and the petitioner which was executed at the time of his appointment stating that the petitioner can continue beyond 58 years. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to his appointment letter which is Annexure R. A. 1 but that does not state that the petitioner can continue beyond 58 years. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel then invited our attention to Annexure R. A. 2 which is an agreement of 22. 2. 1968 between the employees Union and the managing Director of the Bank. This document is not a contract executed between the respondent and the petitioner at the time of his appointment. Hence the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the proviso to Regulation 24 (a) on this basis. It is only a contract executed at the time of appointment of the petitioner which will entitle him to this benefit. Annexure R. A. 2 is not a contract between the Society and the petitioner, executed at the time of his appointment. ( 8 ) IN Allahabad District Co-operative Bank v. Lalij Srivastava, 1995 0 Labic 647 (All), it was held that once the age of retirement has been fixed by agreement between the employee and the employer, the employee will continue to be governed by that agreement. This decision is clearly distinguishable because in the present case we have not been shown any contract between the petitioner and the employer which has been executed at the time of the appointment of the petitioner entitling him to remain in service beyond 58 years. The petitioner was hence in our opinion rightly retired at the age of 58 years. The petition is dismissed. .