JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, J. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to treat him as retired w.e.f. 1.7.2002 on completion of 58 years of age since he is entitled to continue in service till 1.7.2004 i.e., till he attains the age of 60 years. 2. The facts in brief as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in District Cooperative Bank, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") on 2.5.1969 where he joined on 3.5.1969. He was promoted to the post of Junior Branch Manager on 25.9.1978 and thereafter as Senior Branch Manager on 12.1.2002. The conditions of service of the employees of Cooperative Societies are governed by U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "1975 Regulations") but prior to promulgation of the said Regulations, the conditions of service of the employees used to be governed by individual contract and/or the Rules framed by the respective Cooperative Societies. The Bank entered into a contract according to the Rules and Circulars issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was adopted by the Bank, wherein the age of superannuation of the employees of the Bank was prescribed as 60 years. It is said that a resolution was passed by the General Body of the Bank on 27.7.1958 to the effect that a detailed report from the Secretary/Managing Director of the Bank be obtained in regard to the import and effect of the conditions of service mentioned in the Circular issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow vis-a-vis the conditions of service prevailing in the Bank. The Secretary/Managing Director of the Bank in consultation with the Employees Association after due deliberation submitted a report that the age of retirement of the employees of the Bank would be 60 years and with that modification circular issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies be adopted by the Bank. The report was placed before the committee of management of the Bank vide resolution dated 12.10.1958 it adopted the circular of the Registrar in the light of the report submitted by the Managing Director of the Bank. The report was placed before the committee of management of the Bank vide resolution dated 12.10.1958 it adopted the circular of the Registrar in the light of the report submitted by the Managing Director of the Bank. However, under Regulation 24 of 1975 Regulations the age of retirement prescribed is 58 years but proviso thereto states where before commencement of 1975 Regulations, the Society at the time of appointment had entered into a contract with the employees, whereby he is entitled to be retained in service after the date he attains the age of 5 8 years, the provision of Regulation 24 of 1975 Regulations shall not apply and in case of such employees, the date of superannuation shall be determined in accordance with the said contract. It is contended that since the petitioner had already executed a contract with the Bank, providing age of retirement as 60 years, as is corroborated by the Bank's resolution dated 12.10.1958, hence he cannot be retired on attaining the age of 58 years and is entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit stating that the date of birth of the petitioner is 2.7.1944 and he was appointed as Cashier on 30.4.1969/2.5.1969. A copy of the appointment letter has been placed on record as Annexure CA-1. The petitioner after promotion to the post of Senior Branch Manager on 12.1.2002 attained the age of superannuation of 58 years on 1.7.2002 and as per Rules applicable to the Bank was allowed to retire at the end of the month, i.e., 31.7.2002 vide letter dated 4.7.2002, a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure CA-2. It is denied that there was any contract between the petitioner and the Bank whereunder he was entitled to continue beyond the age of 58 years and it is said that the petitioner is governed by 1975 Regulations and, therefore, liable to retire on attainment of the age of 58 years. 4. Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in view of the averments made in the writ petition and Joshi Award, the petitioner was entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years. He also placed reliance on Division Bench judgments in Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Lalji Srivastava, Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in view of the averments made in the writ petition and Joshi Award, the petitioner was entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years. He also placed reliance on Division Bench judgments in Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Lalji Srivastava, Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Lalji Srivastava, (1995) 2 LLJ 859 and a Single Judge judgment in writ petition No. 16365 of 2004, Sri Dhyan Chand Gupta v. District Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Anr., decided on 25.5.2005. 5. We have heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.N. Mishra appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 and perused the record. 6. It is not disputed between the parties that if there existed any contract executed between the petitioner and the respondent Bank prior to enforcement of 1975 Regulations, where under the petitioner is entitled to continue beyond 58 years of age, he would be entitled to avail the same and Regulation 24 of 1975 Regulations would not curtail his age of superannuation. It is also not disputed between the parties that in case the matter is governed by Regulation 24 of 1975 Regulations, then the petitioner would not be entitled to continue beyond 58 years. 7. The controversy, therefore, has been narrowed down in this case as to whether the case of the petitioner would be governed by the proviso to Regulation 24 of the 1975 Regulations or by the main provision or in other words, whether there existed any contract between the petitioner and the Bank entitling him to continue for the period beyond 58 years. Though the petitioner in an indirect way has attempted to assert in the writ petition that there existed a resolution passed by the Bank in 1958 in consultation with the employees prescribing age of retirement as 60 years. However, the petitioner could not show existence of any such contract executed with the Bank providing age of retirement more than 58 years which may attract the proviso to Regulation, 24 of 1975 Regulations and, therefore, he has rightly been retired at the age of 58 years. However, the petitioner could not show existence of any such contract executed with the Bank providing age of retirement more than 58 years which may attract the proviso to Regulation, 24 of 1975 Regulations and, therefore, he has rightly been retired at the age of 58 years. Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to construe the said averment as a contract between the petitioner and Bank but no such document, however, has been placed on record to substantiate that at any point of time, the Bank made any provision prescribing the age of retirement beyond 58 years. On the contrary, the respondents in the counter affidavit have specifically said that there was no condition of service available providing age of retirement as 60 years and no contract existed between the Bank and the petitioner to this effect. The averments made in paragraphs No. 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit are reproduced as under: 9. That the contents of paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition, as stated, is wholly misconceived and incorrect, hence denied. It is wholly incorrect to say that the petitioner is saved by Regulation 24-A proviso. The U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1975 is wholly applicable in the case of petitioner. Further more, there was no condition as such, before the coming in force of Regulations 1975 before the petitioner and answering respondents that he will retire after the age of 60 years. Even the Bank Rules, 1958 provide the age of retirement as 55 years, and the Joshi Award subsequent to that which was agreed between the Bank Employees' Union and the management also provide the age of retirement as 58 years. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is totally misconceived and wrong. 10. That, the contents of paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition, as stated, are incorrect and wrong, hence denied. There are no such contract between the petitioner and the answering respondents regarding the retirement of the petitioner at the age of 60 years. 8. It is also pleaded in paragraphs 3(j) and (o) of the counter affidavit that in regard to age of retirement of employees of various Cooperative Banks including the Bank in question, an industrial dispute was raised by U.P. Bank Employees Union which was referred for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal III at Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 53 of 1963 wherein 50 Cooperative Banks were parties. The Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated 25.6.1971 adjudicated the matter and in para 21 the issue pertaining to the age of retirement was considered and it was held as under: In the Staff Service Rules of U.P. Cooperative Bank, Lucknow, the age of retirement is 58 years. It was argued for the workmen that the uncertainty in this respect should be set at rest as different Banks had taken action on different lines in such cases. Having regard to the entire circumstances, I am of the view that the age of retirement in the case of all the Bank should be 58 years.... 9. It is evident from the said finding of Joshi Award that the age of retirement of employees of the Bank was held to be 58 years. However, it was also observed that there would be no objection to the Board of Directors re-employing an employee provided the re-employment is not for a period of more than one year at a time and more than two years in all after attaining the age of retirement. The said award given on 25.6.19 71 was published by the State Government on 17.7.1971. 10. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have also filed a copy of the District Cooperative Bank Limited Gorakhpur Service Rules which came into force on 12.10.1958, as Annexure CA-10, which contain conditions of service of the employees of the Bank. Rule 17 thereof provides that the maximum age beyond which an employee may not continue in the Bank, is 55 years which may be extended by the Board of Directors, in very special cases, by giving extension of one year at a time but not more than 5 years in aggregate. The said Rules also make it clear that age of retirement was only 55 years in 1958 and no employee had right to continue thereafter. Subsequently, since the Rules have been replaced by 1975 Regulations, which provided age of retirement as 58 years, therefore, the petitioner has been made to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. Moreover, in Joshi award also the age of retirement was provided as 58 years. 11. 1975 Regulations came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Virendra Pal Singh and Ors. v. The District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Etah and Anr. Moreover, in Joshi award also the age of retirement was provided as 58 years. 11. 1975 Regulations came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Virendra Pal Singh and Ors. v. The District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Etah and Anr. 1980 UPLBEC 202 and with respect to the age of retirement qua Regulation 24 of 197 5 Regulations, the Apex Court observed that if an employee before enforcement of 1975 Regulations had entered into any contract with the Society where under he is entitled to continue beyond 58 years, the Regulation 24, providing the age of retirement as 58 years shall not apply in his case and in the matter of age of retirement, he shall be governed by the contract. In para 14 of the judgment, the Apex Court held: 14. Another question which was raised was that though the age of retirement of employees of some of the Cooperative Societies was originally 60 years under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, the age of retirement has now been made 58 years. We are unable to see any force in this submission. Regulation 24(H) itself provides that if before the coming into operation of the Regulations, the Society had entered into any contract with an employee on the date of his employment whereby he was entitled to continue beyond 58 years. The Rule of retirement at the age of 58 years shall not apply and the age of retirement shall be governed by the contract. Therefore, if in any case there is a contract between a Cooperative Society and an employee entered into before the Regulations came into force, stipulating the age of retirement as 60 years the Regulation now stipulating the age of retirement as 58 years will not apply to, him. We make it clear that this principle does not apply to the members of the Centralised service.... 12. Coming to the judgments relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner, we find that the facts of those cases were totally different and have no application to the facts of the case in hand. In Lalji Srivastava (supra) it was the admitted position that there was a settlement dated 22.2.1966 reached between the Bank and the Employees' Union which provided age of retirement as 60 years. This is evident from para 3 of the judgment: 3. In Lalji Srivastava (supra) it was the admitted position that there was a settlement dated 22.2.1966 reached between the Bank and the Employees' Union which provided age of retirement as 60 years. This is evident from para 3 of the judgment: 3. respondent was appointed on 18.5.1960 as a clerk in the Bank. On 22.2.1966 a settlement was reached between the Bank and its employees union of which the respondent was a member. In this settlement age of retirement was fixed at 60 years. 13. In view thereof this Court held that the employees appointed prior to enforcement of 1975 Regulations and those governed by the Settlement dated 22.2.1966 would be entitled to continue till the age of 60 years and shall not be retired on attaining the age of 58 years in view of proviso to Regulation 24 of 1975 Regulations. Ram Swarup Srivastava (supra) was also a case arising from Allahabad Cooperative Bank where existed a similar agreement as involved in Lalji Srivastava (supra). It is also worthy of notice that in Ram Swarup Srivastava (supra) there was another connected matter, i.e., Hari Narain Ojha v. Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Allahabad Special Appeal No. 66 of 2003 but in that case it was found that he was appointed subsequently and was not governed by the settlement dated 22.2.1966 but in view of the Joshi Award was liable to retire on attainment of 58 years and his appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. Similarly, in Dhyan Chand Gupta (supra) we find that there was a settlement dated 6.5.1965 executed by Meerut District Cooperative Bank Meerut, providing the age of retirement as 60 years and pursuant thereto he was held entitled to continue till the age of 60 years. Therefore, none of the aforesaid judgments are applicable or lend any support to the petitioner for the reason that in the case in hand there is no contract executed between the parties, providing any higher age of retirement in order to attract proviso to Regulation 24 of 1975 Regulations. We, therefore, do not find any force in the contention advanced on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he was entitled to continue till he attains 60 years of age. 14. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.