ORDER 1. Heard. 2. Order dated 12.11.2009, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal is being assailed vide this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; whereby while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 5.12.2008, affirmed the claim of Jagdish Prasad (since deceased) of salary for the period from 14.9.98 to 13.12.98 in lieu of Fifth Pay Commission and other dues. 3. Said Jagdish Prasad was on deputation with the petitioner Federation as its Managing Director from 25.5.96 to 28.12.98. That being aggrieved of non-payment of leave pay for the period from 14.9.98 to 13.12.98, arrears of fifth pay commission and non-deposit in General Provident Fund, he raised dispute under section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, before Registrar, Cooperative Societies who transfered the same for adjudication to the Duputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal. The Deputy Registrar vide order dated 12.12.2007 allowed the claim. On challenge by the petitioner, the same was affirmed by the Joint Registrar who dismissed the First Appeal by order dated 5.12.2008. The Second Appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the Tribunal by impugned order dated 12.11.2008. 4. While not raising any dispute qua the merit/factual aspects, as the same was not contradicted before the Joint Registrar (who categorically recorded the finding in the order dated 5.12.2008 that ^^vihykFkhZ vf/koDrk dks vkyksP; vkns’k dh esfjV ds laca/k esa dksbZ vkifŸk ugha gS** ) the impugned order is challenged on the ground that, the dispute as raised was not tenable under section 64 of the Act of 1960. And that it was beyond the jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar to have decided the lis. 5. These two fold submissions when tested on the anvil of provisions contained under section 64 and section 66 of 1960 Act, leaves indeligible impression that submissions have no force. 6. And that it was beyond the jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar to have decided the lis. 5. These two fold submissions when tested on the anvil of provisions contained under section 64 and section 66 of 1960 Act, leaves indeligible impression that submissions have no force. 6. In regard to raising of the dispute under section 64 and its tenability, the dispute was raised on 21.2.2002 at the relevant time section 64(1) (a) provided for :- “64- Disputes: (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, [any dispute touching the constitution, management of business, or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar] by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties there to are among the following:- (a) a society, its committee, any past committee, any past or present officer, any past or present agent, any past or present servant or a nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased agent of deceased servant of the society, or the liquidator of the society: (the words “terms and conditions of employment of a society” appearing in sub-section (1) of section 64 are omitted by M.P. 10 of 2005) 7. Thus at relevant time i.e., in the year 2002, dispute could have been raised under section 64 pertaining to terms and conditions of employment even by any past officer. In the case at hand, being on deputation with the petitioner Federation, it was within the right of Shri Jagdish Prasad to have his disputes pertaining to grant of leave encashment, arrears of fifth pay commission and deposits in the Provident Fund, arising during the period of deputation, settled by involving section 64 of 1960 Act. In view whereof, we do no perceive any illegality in entertaining the dispute under section 64 of 1960 Act by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. 8. In regard to jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar for entertaining the dispute under section 64 of 1960 Act, sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Act of 1960 provides for that” (1) The Registrar may, on receipt of the reference of dispute under section 64 or sub-section (2) of section 55 decide the dispute himself, or transfer it for disposal to a nominee or Board of nominees to be appointed by the Registrar.” 9. Furthermore, we find that vide notification No. F5-1-99-XV-I-C dated 26.7.1999 there is delegation in favour of sub-Registrar of (i) all the powers of Registrar in respect of all the societies under section 64 and (ii) all powers of Registrar in respect of the cases, which are transferred under sub-section (1) of seciont 66 by Registrar or Divisional Joint Registrar. 10. In view whereof, we perceive no illegality in Deputy Registrar entertaining the dispute under section 64 of 1960 Act. 11. No other points have been raised. 12. In the result, since the order passed by the Tribunal connot be faulted with, we refrain from interfering. 13. Petition fails and is dismissed. However, no costs.