S. K. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) CHALLENGED in this petition is the order/notice issued by opposite party No. 2 dated 4. 2. 2003 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) by which petitioner has been informed that he is to attain the age of superannuation on 17. 3. 2003 on attaining the age of 58 years. ( 2 ) WHEN the matter was taken up, counsel appearing for the Bank promptly filed counter-affidavit to which learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he does not intend to file any rejoinder-affidavit and thus as jointly requested, arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and learned counsel who appears for the Bank have been heard. ( 3 ) THERE appears to be not much dispute on the fact and thus on the existing material, the question which requires attention is that whether the petitioner is entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years or upto the age of 58 years. ( 4 ) THE facts which need mention for disposal of this writ petition travel in a very narrow compass which can be summarised thus. Petitioner claims to have been initially appointed as class IV employee in the District Co-operaive Bank Ltd. , Ghazipur, hereinafter referred to as the bank on 5. 12. 1964. It is stated that in the year 1985 petitioner along with three others was given ad hoc promotion on the post of Clerk/cashier (Class III post) and thereafter on approval of the u. P. Co-operaitve Institutions Service Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board petitioner was issued formal appointment letter/order on Class III post referred above. Two letters, i. e. , letter dated 13. 3. 1985 and 11. 8. 1988 by which petitioner has been given ad hoc promotion on the post of Clerk/cashier and thereafter on the approval to the ad hoc promotion issuance of appointment letter for the Class III post have been annexed as Annexures-3a and 3b to the writ petition. In view of the promotion of the petitioner on Class III post as detailed above, petitioner is working as such, when he received notice dated 4. 2. 2003 informing his date of retirement as 17. 3. 2003 on attaining the age of 58 years. In view of the promotion of the petitioner on Class III post as detailed above, petitioner is working as such, when he received notice dated 4. 2. 2003 informing his date of retirement as 17. 3. 2003 on attaining the age of 58 years. Petitioner appears to be under the belief that he is to continue upto the age of 60 years and thus being offended by the impugned notice/order dated 4. 2. 2003 he has come up to this Court by means of this writ petition. ( 5 ) SRI M. D. Singh shekhar learned advocate appeared for the petitioner and Sri Shesh Kumar, sri K. N. Misra, learned advocates appeared for the Bank and Sri A. K. Banerjee, learned standing counsel appeared for the State authority. ( 6 ) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was admittedly appointed on class IV post on 5. 2. 1964 and thus on the date of coming into force of U. P. Co-operative Society employees Service Regulations, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Regulation, which came into force w. e. f. 6. 1. 1976 and its Regulation 24 which was subsequently amended vide U. P. Co-operative Society Employees Services (Fourth Amendment) Regulation, 1983, which came into force w. e. f. 17. 6. 1983, petitioner is entitled to continue till the age of 60 years. Claim is that regulation 24 (b) of the Regulations clearly speaks about continuance of Class IV employee till he attains the age of 60 years. For better appreciation of the controversy it will be useful that regulation 24 of the Regulations is quoted here : "24. 6. 1983, petitioner is entitled to continue till the age of 60 years. Claim is that regulation 24 (b) of the Regulations clearly speaks about continuance of Class IV employee till he attains the age of 60 years. For better appreciation of the controversy it will be useful that regulation 24 of the Regulations is quoted here : "24. Retirement.--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. " ( 7 ) IT Is argued that although petitioner was given ad hoc promotion on Class III post in the year 1985 which was approved by the Board in the year 1988 and appointment letter has been issued to the petitioner on 11. 8. 1988 and although he is working at present as Class III employee but as he was appointed prior to coming into force of Regulation, 1975 and there is no contract between the petitioner and the Bank curtailing his tenure limiting it upto the age of 58 years which is otherwise allowed to be 60 years by the Regulation 24 (b) the impugned exercise by the respondent No. 2 of issuing the notice for petitioners retirement at the age of 58 years is not at all justified and is clearly illegal. It is vehemently submitted that unless there is a contact between the petitioner and the Bank for his continuance only upto the age of 58 years petitioner is entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years in view of the provisions as contained in regulation 24 (b) of the Regulations. In support of the aforesaid submission learned counsel has placed reliance on decision given by this Court in case of Lalji Sriuastava v. Allahabad District co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr. , 1994 (1) UPLBEC 297. ( 8 ) IN response to the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner all the three learned counsel who assisted the Court on behalf of the respondents jointly submit that claim of the petitioner of his continuance upto the age of 60 years is totally misconceived and has no legal basis. It is argued that provisions of Regulation 24 (b) of the Regulations, reliance on which is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner as it talks about continuance upto the age of 60 years of Class IV employee which cannot be stretched to Class iii employee, who in due course of time has been promoted from Class IV post. It is further argued that petitioner by virtue of his promotion on the post of Class III has been availing all the benefits in various respects of Class III post and therefore, it is for the purpose of age of superannuation he cannot claim exception to the other Class III employees. It is submitted that class III employees under Regulation 24 have been permitted to continue only upto the age of 58 years, of course with the exception that if there is contract between the society and the employee before coming into force of the Regulations, 1975 then that is to prevail. It is then pointed out that before coming into force of the Regulations, 1975, as per Joshi award to which respondent bank happened to be a party the age of superannuation happens to be 58 years and therefore, unless there is any contract between the petitioner and the bank to continue upto the age of 60 years, presently he being not working in Class IV post, cannot lay any claim of his continuance upto the age of 60 years. In support of the submission that as per Joshl award the Bank employees were entitled to continue upto the age of 58 years, reference has been made to the decision given by this Court on 3. 3. 2000 in Writ Petition No. 12544 of 1998, Rajmani Singh v. District Co-operative Bank Limited, Mirzapur and Ors. . ( 9 ) IN the light of the aforesaid submissions and the pleadings as has come on the record, the question in issue has been considered. ( 10 ) THE question which needs answer in this petition is that although petitioner was initially appointed as Class IV employee before coming into force of Regulations, 1975 and thereafter he has been promoted to Class III post after coming into force of the Regulation, referred above, and he is working on Class III post, whether he is entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years in view of the provisions as are contained in Regulation 24 (b) of the Regulations. ( 11 ) ON a bare examination of the matter, it appears that there is no substance in the claim of the petitioner. On a plain examination of Regulation 24 which is the bone of the contention, it is clear that Sub-clauses (a) and (b) deal with the employees of category I, II or III and Category IV respectively. Both sub-clauses speak about continuance of two sets of employees, i. e. , I, II and iii and Class IV upto 58 years and 60 years respectively if they have been appointed to the respective post/category stated above. So far Sub-clause (b) of Regulation 24 which deals with class IV category is concerned, no proviso/exception has been provided but so far Sub-clause (a)of Regulation 24 is concerned, it speaks about the proviso/exception. In view of the aforesaid proviso, so far Class I, II and III employees are concerned although their age of retirement has been fixed as 58 years but in the event there is a contract between the employee and the society in respect to their age of retirement/continuance in service, then it is that contract which is to prevail irrespective of the age of superannuation fixed by Regulation 24 (a) of the Regulations. The case in hand is in relation to an employee who was initially appointed on Class IV post and is claiming his continuance upto the age of 60 years. The case in hand is in relation to an employee who was initially appointed on Class IV post and is claiming his continuance upto the age of 60 years. As there is no proviso attached to regulation 24 (b) of the Regulations as is in case of Regulation 24 (a) of the Regulations it clearly means that If class IV employee is appointed after enforcement of Regulations, 1975, he is entitled to continue straightway upto the age of 60 years. The question of continuance upto the age of 58 years or 60 years in respect to Class IV employee on the basis of some contract, on the facts of this case need not to be considered as here in the present case admittedly petitioner was promoted on class III post after coming into force of Regulation, 1975. Petitioner was given ad hoc promotion by order dated 13. 3. 1985 in respect to which approval was given by the Board on 22. 7. 1988 with a clear direction that the petitioner has been found to be eligible and thus appointment letter be issued for class III post. The letter/approval of the Board dated 22. 7. 1988 has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit filed by the Bank. Pursuant to the approval of the Board, Bank issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 11. 8. 1988 (Annexure-3b to the writ petition ). The appointment letter clearly states that with effect from the date on which Board has approved/found the petitioner to be eligible for promotion, petitioner is being appointed on Class III post. It is also made clear In the appointment letter that petitioner will be entitled to all service benefits/facilities as is admissible to Class III employees. The relevant extract as Is contained in the appointment letter as issued to the petitioner for Class III post will be useful to be quoted here : ^^vr% mijksdr dfez;ksa dks e. My }kjk ik= ?kksf"krgksus dh frffk ls osrueku 200and10and300 na- jks-and15and450 dsvarxzr inksuufr djds oxzand3 ds in ij fu;qdr fd;k tkrk gsa lacafu/kr dfez;ksa dks vu; lqfo/kk, csad ds fu;ekuqlkj ns; gksaxh A** ( 12 ) AT this stage, it will be useful to refer back to the mode of the recruitment of the employees in the Bank services which is provided under Regulation 5 of the Regulations 1975. Regulation 5 clearly speaks about one of the mode of recruitment besides direct recruitment, by way of promotion from employees already in service of the society. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that petitioner has been given recruitment/appointment on Class III post which is by one of the mode, i. e. , by promotion as provided under Regulation 5 of the Regulations, 1975. Thus, the only conclusion which can be arrived at this stage is that petitioner has been appointed on Class iii post by order dated 11. 8. 1988 which has its effect from the date on which service Board has declared petitioner to be eligible for promotion/appointment on Class III post. The aforesaid conclusion clearly demolishes the very basis of the petitioners claim that as he was appointed as class IV employee in the year 1964, as Regulation 24 (b) talks about continuance of Class IV employees upto the age of 60 years, he is entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years. The earlier appointment of the petitioner on Class IV post In view of the fresh appointment having been given to him on Class III post as analysed above, loses its significance in respect to the petitioners claim. It is clearly mentioned in the appointment letter dated 11. 8. 1988 that petitioner is being appointed on Class III post entitling him to all the facilities/benefits on Class III post and thus claim of the petitioner that for all other purposes, i. e. , in respect to pay scale and other service conditions, he is to avail that of Class III employee but so far retirement benefit is concerned, he is to be governed by Regulation 24 (b) of the Regulations and he is to be treated as class IV employee does not make out any sense. It appears that petitioner has based his claim solely on the premises that he was initially appointed on Class IV post in the year 1964 but the effect of subsequent development he has forgotten, Petitioner having taken advantage of the subsequent development agreed to receive the appointment on Class III post, the scale of that post, and all other benefits cannot be permitted to take plea that for several benefits he is to be treated as Class III employee and for one of the benefit attached to Class IV post he is to be treated as Class IV employee. The claim of continuance upto the age of 60 years can only be claimed by Class IV employee who is working as such irrespective of any contract as there is no such requirement in Regulation 24 (b) of Regulations. ( 13 ) ON consideration of the entire matter, the Court is of the view that claim of the petitioner who was appointed on Class III post by appointment letter dated 11. 8. 1988 receiving all the service benefits of Class III employee to continue upto the age of 60 years in absence of any contract in this respect is totally misconceived. The decision as has been referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner as has been given in the case of Lalji Srivastava (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. The aforesaid decision deals with the case of a Class iii employee in whose favour there was a contract. The submission of the Bank that contract was not entered into at the time of initial appointment but it was subsequent event and therefore, petitioner is not to continue upto the age of 60 years, was repelled by this Court and it was held that the time of contract is not relevant and in the event there is existing contract on the date of coming into force of the Regulations, petitioner is to continue in terms of that contract. Thus, it is clear that the decision as has been referred by the learned counsel is of no help to him. Thus, it is clear that the decision as has been referred by the learned counsel is of no help to him. ( 14 ) ON examination of the decision as has been referred by the learned counsel for the respondents as given in the case of Rajmani Singh (supra), it is clear that the age of superannuation of the Bank employee was 58 years as per Joshi award in place of which now regulation 24 of Regulations, 1975, has to prevail in view of which in respect to Class I, II and iii employees they are to be governed by Regulation 24 (a) of the Regulations and if there is contract then accordingly and in respect to Class IV employee, irrespective of the contract upto the age of 60 years in view of Regulation 24 (b) of the Regulations, 1975. The observation in this respect as are contained in the decision given in case of Rajmani Singh (supra) can be useful to be quoted here : "having regard to the facts mentioned above, the Court can safely prefer the one produced by mr. Mishra than the one produced by Mr. Singh and come to a conclusion that the contract that gave service of the petitioner prior to the commencement of the Joshi Award or in other words prior to the commencement of 1975 Regulations, was the one produced by Mr. Mishra by which age of superannuation was fixed at 55 years which was however enhanced to 58 years by reason of the Joshi award since been maintained by Regulation 24 of 1975 Regulation. On the other hand subsequent to the filing of the said compromise or bipartite settlement, the joshi award was published in which respondent bank was a parry fixing age of superannuation at 58 years. On the other hand subsequent to the filing of the said compromise or bipartite settlement, the joshi award was published in which respondent bank was a parry fixing age of superannuation at 58 years. " ( 15 ) OTHER submissions as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because State employees are to retire at the age of 60 years and State Level Co-operative Federation and lucknow Milk Producers Union have made necessary amendment enhancing the age of retirement to the employees working in category B and C upto the age of 60 years, petitioner is also entitled to get enhancement of his working period upto the age of 60 years also needs rejection for the simple reason that it is for the concerned department to think about it and to take appropriate decision in the matter, the Court cannot direct for enhancement of age of retirement of petitioner. The amendment so referred by learned counsel for the petitioner in respect to the other department and the State Employees cannot automatically apply to the petitioners case and otherwise also on own showing of the petitioner his claim is governed by the provisions of regulation 24 of the Regulation 1975. ( 16 ) IN view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner for his continuance upto the age of 60 years merits rejection. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY, this writ petition fails and is dismissed at the admission stage. .