JUDGMENT 1. - Since common facts and question of law are involved in all these three writ petitions, they are being decided together. 2. By these writ petitions, petitioners, have challenged orders dated 5.5.1994 passed by the Additional Registrar (I), Cooperative Societies and 16.6.1994 passed by the Chief Manager, Khairthal Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Samiti') and have further prayed restoration of the Resolution of the Society relating to salary and allowances, dated 1.2.1989. Petitioners have also prayed for restraining respondents from terminating their services. 3. Facts of SBCWP No. 4330/1994 Hoshiyar Singh v. Additional Registrar are taken for the purpose of decision of the petitions as the impugned orders are common in all the petitions. 4. Petitioner Hoshiyar Singh was appointed as Salesman vide order dated 24.2.1988 at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. After considering satisfactory work, the petitioner was given charge of Mandawar office of the Society vide order dated 6.4.1980. Thereafter, vide resolution dated 23.2.1989, petitioner was given regular pay scale of Rs. 880-1680 of salesman. Other petitioners were given regular pay scale of post of Salesman and Class-IV respectively. 5. It is stated in the writ petition that Board of Directors of the respondent Society in their meeting held on 112.1989 vide Resolution No. 4 decided that in view of the circular of the Registrar dated 17/26.5.1988 and further considering work of the Society and the petitioners, granted them scale of their respective posts and office order in pursuance to the aforesaid Resolution was passed on 23.2.1989. Assistant Registrar who was present in the meeting made note of dissent but resolution was passed on the basis of majority of the Board of Directors. Subsequently, the Assistant Registrar complained the matter to the Joint Registrar who had issued notice to the respondent Society and cancelled the resolution under Section 32 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act') vide order dated 27.7.1989 on the ground that the said resolution is contrary to the economic interest of the Society and departmental directions contained in the circular. It is stated in the writ petition that the Society made a request for adjournment of the case as the office bearer could not be able to attend the same on account of illness but no adjournment was granted and the aforesaid Resolution was passed. It is stated in the writ petition that the Society made a request for adjournment of the case as the office bearer could not be able to attend the same on account of illness but no adjournment was granted and the aforesaid Resolution was passed. Subsequently, appeal was filed by the Society but without success. It is also stated in the writ petition that in both the impugned orders dated 5.5.1994 and 16.6.1994 it has not been mentioned as to how grant of pay scale to the employee is contrary to the economic interest of the Society. Further, Section 32 of the Act has also not been taken into consideration as the Resolution could only be rescinded after hearing and further if the same is found opposed to the objects of the Society or is prejudicial to the interests of the Society or is in excess of the power of the Society. 6. Submission of Mr. R.N. Mathur is that the Joint Registrar has committed a serious error in not granting adjournment despite request made by the Chief Manager and there was no justification for not adjourning the said proceeding under Section 32. The counsel further submits that according to Section 32 resolution could only be rescinded in case the same is contrary to the object of the Society or is prejudicial to the interests of the Society or is in excess of the power of the Society and no such contingency exists. The appellate authority has also not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and upheld the order in a mechanical manner. 7. Submission of the Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 is that both the impugned orders have been passed in accordance with provisions of Section 32. He further submits that the economic condition of the respondent Society is not sound and therefore, there was no justification for grant of the pay scale. 8. Mr. H.P. Singh, appearing for the respondent Society submits that the orders have rightly been passed by the Society and the Society was not given hearing by the Joint Registrar. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties. 10. 8. Mr. H.P. Singh, appearing for the respondent Society submits that the orders have rightly been passed by the Society and the Society was not given hearing by the Joint Registrar. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties. 10. In orders dated 26.7.1989 and 5.5.1994 there is no specific finding with regard to the grounds that have been mentioned in Section 32 except vague reference to the Resolution being contrary to the economic interest of the Society and departmental circulars. In the impugned orders, there is neither any discussion of the economic condition of the Society nor any violation of the specific departmental circular whereas in the order dated 23.2.1989 there is reference that the regularisation order has been passed in accordance with circular dated 17/26.5.1988 issued by the Registrar. There is no denial to the existence of the said circular. 11. The submission of the learned Additional G.A. is that the economic condition of the Society is not good. There is nothing on record to show that the economic condition of the respondent Society is not sound and the Society is not in a position to make payment of the salary. 12. Therefore, the vague finding recorded by the joint Registrar as well as the Additional Registrar on the issue of resolution being contrary to the economic interest of the Society and violation of the circular is liable to be set aside. 13. As regards apprehension of the termination of the services of the petitioner, counsel submits that the petitioner has earlier approached the civil Court and the civil Court has passed decree for not terminating him, which has attained finality, therefore, there is no apprehension of termination of the petitioner. 14. In view of the above, all the three writ petitions are allowed, impugned orders dated 5.5.1994 and 16.6.1994 are quashed. The original Resolution of the Board dated 1.2.1989 and orders 23.2.1989 granting pay scale to the petitioners are restored.Writ Petition Allowed. *******