JUDGMENT By the Court.—All these Special Appeals have been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 11th May, 2009 of a learned Judge of this Court whereby the age of superannuation of employees of the Ordnance Factory Co-operative Society Limited, Kalpi Road, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Society’) has been held to be 60 years instead of 58 years as claimed by the appellants. 2. The Society is registered under the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and has about five thousand members who are employees of the Ordnance Factory. It is said that on 3rd January, 1968, the Committee of Management/Board of Directors of the Society passed a resolution that the age of superannuation of the employees of the Society will be 60 years. The writ petitioners, who are respondents in these Special Appeals, had asserted that in 1977, the Society framed “Ordnance Factory Co-operative Society Limited, Kanpur Service Rules” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) and the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, U.P. Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Assistant Registrar’) accorded approval to these Rules on 3rd July, 1991 but according to the Appellants such Rules were not approved by the District Assistant Registrar and so could not be applied to the employees. The decision in these Appeals, therefore, depends upon the applicability of these Rules because under Rule 14 no employee can be continued in service of the Society if he has attained the age of 60 years though the Board of Directors can extend the employment beyond the age of 60 years in very special cases but no extension can be given for more than one year at a time and for more than two years in aggregate. The Committee of Management/Board of Directors of the Society passed a resolution on 29th July, 2006 that the age of superannuation shall be reduced from 60 years to 58 years. It was also resolved in the said meeting that the two employees namely K.B. Tripathi and V.S. Bhadauria who had attained the age of 58 years on 3rd July, 2006 and 12th July, 2006 respectively be allowed to superannuate w.e.f. 31st July, 2006. 3. It was also resolved in the said meeting that the two employees namely K.B. Tripathi and V.S. Bhadauria who had attained the age of 58 years on 3rd July, 2006 and 12th July, 2006 respectively be allowed to superannuate w.e.f. 31st July, 2006. 3. This resolution of the Committee of Management/Board of Directors passed on 29th July, 2006 was assailed by K.B. Tripathi and V.S. Bhadauria in Writ Petition No. 43167 of 2006 which was disposed of by this Court on 10th August, 2006 with a direction to the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, U.P. Kanpur Region, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Joint Registrar’) to decide the representation within six weeks. The representation was ultimately rejected by the Joint Registrar by the order dated 6th January, 2007 exercising powers under Section 128 of the Act. The said order of the Joint Registrar mentions that the approval granted to the Service Rules on 3rd July, 1991 by the District Assistant Registrar appears to be very doubtful, particularly when the approval is said to have been granted after a long period of 14 years and, therefore, in such circumstances the Rules will not be applicable and the age of superannuation of Class III employees of the Society will be 58 years. The order further mentions that the District Assistant Registrar by his communication dated 14th December, 2006 had also issued directions to the Secretary/President of the Society that the age of superannuation of the employees of the Society will be 58 years which directions were binding on the Society and have to be followed. 4. Special Appeal No. 902 of 2009 arises out of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 3588 of 2007 which had been filed by Pashu Pati Nath Tiwari for quashing the order dated 6th January, 2007 passed by the Joint Registrar in so far as it ratifies the resolution passed by the Committee of Management/Board of Directors of the Society on 29th July, 2006 that the age of superannuation of the employees will be 58 years and a consequential direction has been sought upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in the service till the completion of 60 years of age. 5. 5. Special Appeal No. 900 of 2009 arises out of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 16808 of 2007 that had been filed by Vijay Shanker Singh for quashing the resolution dated 29th July, 2006 passed by the Committee of Management/Board of Directors of the Society as well as the order dated 6th January, 2007 passed by the Joint Registrar and the consequential notice dated 19th March, 2007 issued by the Society. 6. Special Appeal No. 905 of 2009 arises out of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 16809 of 2007 that had been filed by Chandra Shekhar Singh for quashing the resolution dated 29th July, 2006 passed by the Committee of Management/Board of Directors of the Society as well as the order dated 6th January, 2007 passed by the Joint Registrar and the consequential notice dated 19th March, 2007 issued by the Society. 7. Special Appeal No. 906 of 2009 arises out of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 16811 of 2007 that had been filed by C.B. Bajpayee for quashing the resolution dated 29th July, 2006 passed by the Committee of Management/Board of Directors of the Society as well as the order dated 6th January, 2007 passed by the Joint Registrar and the consequential notice dated 19th March, 2007 issued by the Society. 8. Special Appeal No. 903 of 2009 arises out of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 32561 of 2007 that had been filed by Chandra Shekhar Singh, Vijay Shanker Singh and C.B. Bajpayee for quashing the order dated 13th July, 2007 passed by the Secretary of the Society informing these petitioners that they will superannuate on 14th July, 2007 on the basis of the notice dated 19th March, 2007. 9. Special Appeal No. 904 of 2009 arises out of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 35802 of 2007 that had been filed by Dhananjay Singh for quashing the order dated 6th July, 2007 passed by the Incharge-Secretary of the Society informing him that he shall superannuate on 3rd August, 2007 and for a direction upon the respondents to permit him to work till he attains the age of 60 years. 10. The learned Judge by the impugned order has allowed all the writ petitions filed by employees of the Society and has held that the age of superannuation of the employees of the Society will be 60 years. 11. 10. The learned Judge by the impugned order has allowed all the writ petitions filed by employees of the Society and has held that the age of superannuation of the employees of the Society will be 60 years. 11. Sri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant-Society submitted that the writ petitions filed by the employees of the Society were liable to be dismissed as not maintainable since the Society is neither a State nor instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the order dated 6th January, 2007 was passed by the Joint Registrar under Section 128 of the Act on the representation filed by K.B. Tripathi and V.S. Bhadauria and so the other employees had no locus standi to seek the quashing of this order. It is also his submission that Writ Petition No. 32561 of 2007 had been filed jointly by Chandra Shekhar Singh, Vijay Shanker Singh and C.B. Bajpayee even though they had earlier filed Writ Petition Nos. 16809 of 2007, 16808 of 2007 and 16811 of 2007 separately and, therefore the subsequent petition should be dismissed. On merit, he submitted that the age of superannuation of the employees of the Society is 58 years and not 60 years. 12. Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Pashu Pati Nath Tiwari in Special Appeal No. 902 of 2009, however, submitted that the writ petitions were maintainable since the order passed by the Joint Registrar under Section 128 of the Act was sought to be quashed and even though the said order may have been passed by the Joint Registrar on the representation filed by two employees, yet the petitioners are “persons aggrieved” as the order determines the age of superannuation of employees of the Society as 58 years instead of 60 years. It is also his submission that under Rule 14 of the Rules, the age of superannuation of the employees could not have been altered by the Committee of Management/Board of Directors of the Society by the resolution dated 29th July, 2006. He has also placed reliance upon the order of the District Assistant Registrar dated 17th January, 2009, which had been passed pursuant to the directions issued by the Co-operative Tribunal under Section 98(2) of the Act, holding that approval had been granted to the Rules on 3rd July, 1991. 13. He has also placed reliance upon the order of the District Assistant Registrar dated 17th January, 2009, which had been passed pursuant to the directions issued by the Co-operative Tribunal under Section 98(2) of the Act, holding that approval had been granted to the Rules on 3rd July, 1991. 13. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The first objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is about the maintainability of the writ petitions. All the writ petitions except Writ Petition No. 32561 of 2007 and Writ Petition No. 35802 of 2007 had been filed claiming various reliefs including the relief for quashing the order dated 6th January, 2007 passed by the Joint Registrar under Section 128 of the Act. Section 128 of the Act empowers the Registrar to annul any resolution of a Co-operative Society or cancel order passed by an Officer of a Co-operative Society in certain cases and is as follows : “128. Registrar’s power to annul resolution of a co-operative society or cancel order passed by an officer of a co-operative society in certain cases.—The Registrar may— (i) annul any resolution passed by the Committee of Management, or the general body of any co-operative society; or (ii) cancel any order passed by an officer of a co-operative society ; if he is of the opinion that the resolution or the order, as the case may be, is not covered by the objects of the society, or is in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws of the society, whereupon every such resolution or order shall become void and inoperative and be deleted from the records of the society : Provided that, the Registrar shall, before making any order, require the Committee of Management, general body or officer of the co-operative society to reconsider the resolution, or as the case may be, the order, within such period as he may fix but which shall not be less than fifteen days, and if he deems fit may stay the operation of that resolution or the order during such period.” 15. The Registrar is appointed under Section 3 of the Act by the State Government and the State Government, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, can also appoint any other person to assist the Registrar and by general or special order confer on any such person all or any of the powers of the Registrar. The Joint Registrar, in the instant case, has exercised the powers of the Registrar while passing the order under Section 128 of the Act. The petitioners have sought the quashing of the order passed by the Joint Registrar who is appointed under the Act to discharge statutory powers including the powers conferred upon him under Section 128 of the Act. Two employees of the Society had invoked the powers of the Registrar under the aforesaid Section for annulling the resolution of the Committee of Management of the Society reducing the age of superannuation from 60 years to 58 years. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the writ petitions would not be maintainable even if the order of the Registrar is under challenge cannot be accepted. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Sultanpur, U.P. v. Satrughan Nishad and others, 2004(1) ESC 142 (SC), which was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited. and another v. Rakesh Chandra Gangwar and others, 2004(3) ESC 1789 (All). In the former decision, the Supreme Court did hold that the Co-operative Society, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Sultanpur was not an instrumentality nor agency of the Government and, therefore, not State within the meaning of the Article 12 of the Constitution, but what was under challenge in the petition was an order passed by the Society dispensing with the services of the surplus workmen. Here, in the present case, it was an order passed by the Joint Registrar under Section 128 of the Act that was under challenge in the writ petitions. Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Here, in the present case, it was an order passed by the Joint Registrar under Section 128 of the Act that was under challenge in the writ petitions. Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. However, it needs to be noticed that Dhananjay Singh in his Writ Petition No. 35802 of 2007 did not challenge the order dated 6th January, 2007 passed by Joint Registrar and had only sought a direction upon the respondents to permit him to work till he attains the age of 60 years. It will, therefore, have to be examined in his case as to whether the writ petition would be maintainable or not but we do not consider it proper to do so in the present case as Dhananjay Singh would also be entitled to continue upto 60 years once it is held in the petitions filed by other employees that the age of superannuation of employees of the Society is 60 years. We, therefore, leave this issue to be decided in an appropriate case. 17. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to the filing of the second Writ Petition No. 32561 of 2007 by Chandra Shekhar Singh, Vijay Shanker Singh and C.B. Bajpayee. It is correct that earlier, these three employees had filed Writ Petition Nos. 16809 of 2007, 16808 of 2007 and 16811 of 2007 in which the reliefs claimed by all the three employees was for quashing the resolution dated 29th July, 2006 passed by the Committee of Management/Board of Directors of the Society, the order dated 6th January, 2007 passed by the Joint Registrar and the notice dated 19th March, 2007 issued by the Society but in the subsequent Writ Petition No. 32561 of 2007 filed jointly by these three persons, the relief claimed is for quashing the notices dated 13th July, 2007 by which the Society had informed these employees that since no stay order was passed by this Court in the writ petitions filed by them for quashing the notices dated 19th March, 2007, they shall retire on 14th July, 2007. It cannot, therefore, be said that the same reliefs have been claimed in the subsequent petition. In fact it is the consequential notice dated 13th July, 2007 that has been impugned in the subsequent petition. It cannot, therefore, be said that the same reliefs have been claimed in the subsequent petition. In fact it is the consequential notice dated 13th July, 2007 that has been impugned in the subsequent petition. These three persons could have moved an amendment application in the earlier petitions filed by them, but it cannot be said that the second petition is not maintainable. 18. We also do not find any force in the objection of the learned counsel for the appellants that even if the petitions are maintainable against an order passed by the Joint Registrar under Section 128 of the Act, then too the petitions could have been filed only by the two employees whose representation had been decided by the Registrar and not by other employees. 19. It is no doubt true that K.B. Tripathi and V.S. Bhadauria had approached the Joint Registrar for invoking his powers under Section 128 of the Act for setting aside the resolution of the Society altering the age of superannuation of the employees from 60 years to 58 years, but the Joint Registrar by the order dated 6th January, 2007 confirmed the resolution of the Society and has held that the age of superannuation of the employees of the Society will be 58 years and not 60 years. In such circumstances, all the employees of the Society will be affected and would be “persons aggrieved” entitled to seek the quashing of the said order. 20. This brings us to the main issue about the age of superannuation of the employees of the Society. This issue depends upon the applicability of the Rules to the employees of the Society. Rule 14 of the Rules provides that no employee shall be continued in the service of the Society if he has attained the age of 60 years. According to the respondents, these Rules framed by the Society in the year 1977 were approved by the District Assistant Registrar on 3rd July, 1991. The Assistant Registrar in his order dated 6th January, 2007 has expressed doubts about the approval granted on 3rd January, 1991 by the District Assistant Registrar because of the long delay and has accordingly discarded these Rules. The Assistant Registrar in his order dated 6th January, 2007 has expressed doubts about the approval granted on 3rd January, 1991 by the District Assistant Registrar because of the long delay and has accordingly discarded these Rules. What is to be noticed is that on the basis of the order dated 6th January, 2007 passed by the Assistant Registrar, the Joint Registrar proceeded to pass an order under Section 68(2) of the Act for recovery of the excess amount paid to K.B. Tripathi as he had continued in service beyond 58 years. This order was challenged by K.B. Tripathi before Co-operative Tribunal by filing a Statutory Appeal under Section 98 of the Act. The Appeal was allowed by the Tribunal by the order dated 18th September, 2008 and a direction was given to the District Assistant Registrar to pass an appropriate order after examining whether approval to the 1977 Rules had been granted on 3rd January, 1991. The District Assistant Registrar subsequently passed an order on 17th January, 2009 clearly holding that the approval had been granted to the Rules on 3rd July, 1991. Thus, all the doubts expressed by the Assistant Registrar in his order dated 6th January, 2007 about the grant of approval to the Rules stand removed and since under Rule 14 of the Rules, the age of superannuation of the employee is 60 years they are entitled to continue in service upto 60 years. The resolution passed by the Committee of Management of the Society on 29th July, 2006, therefore, cannot lower the age of superannuation. Consequently, the order of the Joint Registrar dated 6th January, 2007 was rightly set aside by the learned Judge with a direction that the age of superannuation of the employees of the Society will be 60 years. 21. We, therefore, see no good reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Judge. The Special Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. ————