JUDGMENT : 1. The intra Court appeal has been preferred by the Co-operative Society questioning the legality of the order dated 10th March, 2011 passed in W.P. 18109 (W) of 2005. 2. The petitioner had questioned the decision of the respondent No. 2 to compel him to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years whereas he claimed that the age of retirement on superannuation in terms of the rules prevailing at that point of time was 60 years. Rule 19(1) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987, prescribes the age of retirement of co-operative employees to be 60 years. The Single Bench had allowed the writ application and directed that all legal dues including the terminal benefits of the petitioner, till he attended the age of 60 years, together with compound interest at the prevailing highest rate payable on fixed deposit by a nationalized bank, be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months. Aggrieved thereby, the intra Court appeal has been preferred by the Society. 3. Shri Chakraborty, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Sumanta Chakraborty has submitted that it is an unaided society and no grant is received from the State Government. As such, the writ petition could not be said to be maintainable before the Single Bench. 4. It was further submitted by the learned Advocate that Rule 19(1) of the Rules is not applicable to the petitioner society as it is governed by its own regulation. 5. Lastly, the learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that in stead of compound interest, only simple interest can be given as the petition was filed belatedly. 6. The main question for consideration is that whether there is applicability and consequential violation of Rule 19 of the Appendix to Chapter VI of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987 in the instant case. Rule 19(1) of the Rules is quoted below: “19. Recruitment and retirement benefits-(1): Every employee of a co-operative society shall retire on superannuation attaining the age of sixty years.” 7. It is apparent from the amended provision of Rule 19 of the Rules, it was admittedly incorporated before the retirement of the petitioner from the service. There is no distinction as to the applicability of the Rules to aided or unaided society. Every employee of Co-operative Society shall retire on superannuation attaining the age of 60 years. It is apparent from the amended provision of Rule 19 of the Rules, it was admittedly incorporated before the retirement of the petitioner from the service. There is no distinction as to the applicability of the Rules to aided or unaided society. Every employee of Co-operative Society shall retire on superannuation attaining the age of 60 years. The Rule has not made distinction between an aided and unaided society. As such, submission raised by the learned Advocate for the appellants with respect to non-applicability of the Rule 19 stands repelled. 8. The learned Advocate for the appellants is also unable to satisfy us as to the non-applicability of the rules to the society, even if it did not receive any grant-in-aid. The definition of ‘Co-operative Society’ in terms of Section 4(15) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 means a Co-operative Society registered under this Act and includes all cooperative societies registered under the previous Acts. The definition does not make any distinction between aided and unaided societies. 9. Once, the Rule 19(1) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules has been framed, in our view, it is applicable to the appellants' society also and the employee could not have been superannuated before the completion of the age of superannuation as prescribed under the Rules. Regulations would not prevail as rule is binding upon the society. 10. The submission raised by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the writ petition could not be said to be maintainable before the Single Bench as it is unaided society is also liable to be rejected. In case of violation of such statutory Rule, it is settled proposition of law that the writ petition is maintainable. 11. It appears that the petitioner/respondent retired in the month of December, 2000. He filed writ petition in the year 2005 and that too after taking retrial benefits etc. As writ petition was filed belatedly, obviously, the relief granted with respect to compounding of interest is to be modified. However, he would be entitled to get salary of two years and other terminal benefits from which he was deprived by treating his age of superannuation as 58 years. 12. Accordingly, the compound interest part is set aside as the petitioner did not file the writ petition expeditiously before this Court. However, he would be entitled to get salary of two years and other terminal benefits from which he was deprived by treating his age of superannuation as 58 years. 12. Accordingly, the compound interest part is set aside as the petitioner did not file the writ petition expeditiously before this Court. Apart from that, interest ought not to be allowed for the period till the writ petition was filed. Simple interest at the rate of 6% is ordered to be paid from the date of filing of the writ petition till actual payment is made. Remaining part of the order is not modified. 13. Accordingly, the order of the Single Bench is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is allowed in part, however, without any order as to costs. In view of disposal of the appeal, the connected application being CAN 5303 of 2011 is also disposed of.