Judgment :- Petitioner is a Co-operative Society. It runs a hospital in Ernakulam with different departments and specialties, including super specialties. 2. Petitioner Society decided to fix the age of retirement of its staff at 55 years. The Service Rules so issued were approved by the Registrar. At the time of such approval of the Service Rules, Rule 183 (2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the KCS Rules”) provided as follows: “No employee shall be eligible to continue in the service of a society after he attains the age of 55 years.” 3. By S.R.O.No.870/75 dated 27-9-1975 published in the Kerala Gazette dated 29-9-1975, the said sub-rule was amended altering the age stated in the Rule as 58 years. It was further amended as per S.R.O.No.188/93 dated 29-10-1992. Rule 183 (2) of the KCS Rules now reads as follows: “No employee shall be eligible to continue in the service off a society after the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years”. 4. On 17-12-1997, the first respondent Registrar issued Ext.P1 directing the petitioner Society to amend Rule 7 of its Service Rules, thereby requiring that the age of retirement be fixed as 58 years, instead of 55 years. It is this decision that is under challenge. 5. According to the petitioner, Rule 183 (2) fixes only an outer limit and therefore the Society is will within its authority to fix an earlier age of retirement for its employees. 6. The third respondent is the union of the employees of the Society. A counter affidavit is placed on record on behalf of the third respondent contending, interalia, that as per Ext.R3(b), an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner Society was disposed of and that the plea raised by the writ petitioner in Ground E of that writ petition, which is extracted in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit of the third respondent in this case, did not find favour with this Court. The said Ground E in the earlier case, namely, O.P.10705 of 1997 related to the question of enhancement of the retirement age to 58 years. The counter affidavit of the third respondent also points out that there are various employees in the service of the petitioner, who are aged even above 58 years. The said Ground E in the earlier case, namely, O.P.10705 of 1997 related to the question of enhancement of the retirement age to 58 years. The counter affidavit of the third respondent also points out that there are various employees in the service of the petitioner, who are aged even above 58 years. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the third respondent that the said averments in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit are not controverted. 7. A counter affidavit is also filed on behalf of the first respondent supporting the decision contained in Ext.P1. It is specifically pointed out that the prescription of 55 years as retirement age in the Service Rules of the petitioner was approved at a point of time when Rule 183 (2) of the Rules provided so. It is also pointed out that this Court had consistently adopted the approach that the statutory rules contained in Rule 183 will govern retirement. 8. In the case of P.A. George v. Tatapuram Co-operative Society Ltd. (1975 K.L.T. 367) this court held that the bye-laws are not statutory in nature and under Rule 183 (2), no employee shall be eligible to continue in service after he attains the age of 55 years. In Chellappan v. Director of Handlooms (1983 K.L.T. 912) it was held that the Rules apply to all Societies governed by the Act and that Rule 183 is a specific statutory provision, which prescribes the age of retirement. 9. As already noticed, Rule 183(2) states that no employee shall be eligible to continue in the service of the Society after the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years. This Rule has been held to be not ultra vires the rule making power conferred on the Government. (See Mathai M. Iype’s case, 1976 K.L.N. 138. The KCS Rules are meant to govern all societies. Rule 183 occurs in Chapter 15 of the KCS Rules, which relates to establishment. Rule 183 provides the entire provisions relating to age limit including the age of retirement of the service of all Co-operative Societies. This means that it is the requirement of the Act and Rules that Rule 183 (2) is uniformly followed by all Co-operative Societies. Rule 183 (2) contains the prescribed retirement age and not the outer limit as to age. This means that it is the requirement of the Act and Rules that Rule 183 (2) is uniformly followed by all Co-operative Societies. Rule 183 (2) contains the prescribed retirement age and not the outer limit as to age. Rule 183 (2) is a Rule prescribing the age of retirement. This means that any employee of any Co-operative Society registered under the Act is entitled to continue in service till the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years. This is the effect of Rule 183 (2) of the KCS Rules as it stands. The employer society has no right to prescribe a retirement age lesser or higher that that prescribed by Rule 183(2). If such authority to make a bye-law to the contrary is acceded to, in my considered view, it will result in an anomalous situation not conceived by the concept of fairness and the recruitment of statutory control over the Co-operative Societies. Therefore, there is no right in any Society to frame a Service Rule in any manner varying the retirement age of its employees from that which is prescribed in Rule 183 (2). 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner however relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kamala v. Dairy Extension Officer (1995 (2) K.L.T. 162). The said decision has no application since the questions that arose in that case related to disqualification from the membership of the Committee and as to whether the deletion of Rule 44 (1) (m) of the KCS Rules results in the Society being bound to fall in line by making suitable amendments in its bye-laws. The said precedent does not therefore have any bearing on the issue arising for decision in this case. In the result, this writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.