JUDGMENT : This order will govern the disposal of Writ Petition No. 8694/2012, W.P. No. 2987/2012 and W.P. No. 15123/2012. For the purposes of this order, the facts are taken from W.P. No. 19445/2012. 2. The petitioner was originally appointed in a Co-operative Society constituted for the purposes of implementing the electrification work in the rural area. Later on, in terms of the instructions issued by the M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, policy decision was taken by the respondents-M.P. Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board'), and services of the petitioner were absorbed in the M.P. Electricity Board. After bifurcation of the Board in different companies, the petitioner came in service of the M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd. The grievance put forth by the petitioner is that by impugned notice dated 23-7-2011, he was communicated that on attaining the age of 58 years, he is to retire with effect from 30-11-2012. It is contended by the petitioner that the action of retiring the petitioner is against the terms and conditions prescribed, therefore, the order of superannuation is bad. In fact, the petitioner would be entitled to continue in the employment till attaining the age of 60 years. It is put forth that the issue has already been decided by this Court Bench at Indore and in terms of the notification subsequently issued by the respondent, the age of superannuation of the petitioner would be 60 years and not otherwise. It is thus, contended that the action on the part of respondents is per se illegal and as such the order impugned is liable to be quashed. The other petitions are also on the same issue against the similar notice of retirement, therefore, all these writ petitions were heard together. 3. The respondents have filed their return and have contended that since the decision was taken to reduce the age of superannuation, the enhanced age of superannuation is again reduced in the year 2000 from 60 years to 58 years. The petitioner when was working in the Co-operative Society, the age of superannuation in the Co-operative society was also 58 years. The respondents have filed their return and have contended that since the decision was taken to reduce the age of superannuation, the enhanced age of superannuation is again reduced in the year 2000 from 60 years to 58 years. The petitioner when was working in the Co-operative Society, the age of superannuation in the Co-operative society was also 58 years. It is contended that after absorption of the petitioner in the services of the respondents-Board, if the age of superannuation is changed or amended in the Co-operative Society, the same would not be applicable in the case of petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be said to be in the employment of the Co-operative Society any longer. In view of this, it is submitted that the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench at Indore would not be attracted and in any case the petitioner would not be entitled to continue in the service up to the age of 60 years. It is contended that such a claim made by the petitioner is misconceived, therefore, the same deserves to be rejected. 4. By filing a reply to the application for vacating stay, the petitioner has brought on record certain orders passed by this Court. It is contended that the claim of persons like petitioner was already examined by this Court and finally adjudicated. Circular dated 3-3-1998 would give the benefit of continuance in the service to the persons like petitioner. The subsequent amendment in the service conditions to the detriment of the petitioner is not permissible and, therefore, the petitioner is still entitled to grant of relief claimed in the writ petition. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. This Court while dealing with such a situation, to some extent in some what similar claim made, has categorically dealt with that if there is no specific condition made in the order of absorption of the petitioner that he will not be entitled to claim any service benefits, in terms of the service condition prescribed in the Board, after his absorption, the person like petitioner would be entitled to claim the benefit of service condition prescribed for the regular employees of the respondents-Board/Company. It is to be seen that if the order of absorption was issued, the absorbed employee would also become an employee of the Board. It is to be seen that if the order of absorption was issued, the absorbed employee would also become an employee of the Board. Merely, because his previous service condition in the Society are protected, it cannot be said that he would not be entitled to get the benefit of service condition available in the Board. If, this is allowed, it will mean that absorbed employees are treated a class separate than the employees appointed in regular establishment of the respondents-Board. In that way, persons like petitioner would be discriminated against the voice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which is not permissible under the law. This being so, not a single condition was prescribed in this respect by the respondents in their policy when the same was made for the purposes of absorption of persons like petitioner. 7. Now the question is whether the petitioner is to continue on the post up to the age of 60 years or not. The age of superannuation is changed in the establishment of the respondents-Board itself. There was an amendment made in the service condition way back in the year 1998 by the Board. The same situation was with the service condition of the petitioner which were available in the Cooperative Society and, therefore, it will not be proper on the part of the respondents to say that the petitioner would not be entitled to continue on the post up to the age of 60 years. This Court in the case of Gulabsingh Vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P. No. 3787/2009 (s), decided on 26-7-2010, has rendered a decision in this respect at Indore Bench of this Court. The similar decision is reiterated in cases of other similarly situated persons. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Gulabsingh (supra), has been interfered by any higher Forum. Even in the case of Dongarsingh Vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P. No. 4745/2010, decided on 3-8-2010, the order of retirement was quashed. This order has been followed in other cases as well and, therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of continuance on the post till he attains the age of 60 years. State of M.P. and others, W.P. No. 4745/2010, decided on 3-8-2010, the order of retirement was quashed. This order has been followed in other cases as well and, therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of continuance on the post till he attains the age of 60 years. In any case, if the petitioner is granted the benefit of extended age prescribed for the Co-operative Society, he would be entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years and in case the service condition available in the respondents establishment are made applicable, he will continue on the post up to the age of 60 years. That being so, the action respondents retiring the petitioner at the age of 58 years cannot be sustained. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The notice dated 23-7-2011 (Annexure P-1), is hereby quashed. If the petitioner is continuing on the post pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court, he would be entitled to continue on the post till he attains the age of 60 years. The petitioner would be entitled to all the monetary benefits of the post. In cases of those who have been made to retire at the age of 58 years and who have not been granted any interim protection by this Court, they would be entitled to get the benefit of salary in all respect for the period of two years of service, treating them to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. The calculation in this respect be done and monetary benefit be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. 9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.