Judgment 1. This bunch of matters is being disposed of by this common order and facts are illustratively taken from SBCWP No.7404/2013 – Shanker Lal vs. State & Ors. as well as SBCWP No.12152/2013 – Umaid Singh vs. State & ors. 2. The controversy in hand is about the retirement age, whether it has to be 58 years or 60 years for the employees of respondent Bikaner Dugdh Utapadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Bikaner, which is independently incorporated Cooperative Society governed by the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. The Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited is the apex body of all the Districts dairy units, which is also independently incorporated body. This is the third round of litigation before this Court. The earlier rounds of litigation having been disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 23/12/2011 in a bunch of 68 matters led by Dairy Karamchari Union, Jodhpur vs. R.K.Trashal & Ors. by which the contempt petitions & writ petitions came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court headed by the then Chief Justice. 3. The Division Bench of this Court decided the controversy with the following observations:- “Coming to the question whether RCDF should consider the question of enhancement of age of superannuation or the respective Society, the RCDF is the Apex Society and the various Societies are signatories to the registration of the Apex Society under the Act of 2001. The “Member” has been defined in Section 2(p) of the Act of 2001, which means a person joining in the application for the registration of a Cooperative Society and a person admitted to membership after such registration in accordance with the Act of 2001 and the Rules and the bye laws and includes a nominal and an associate member. Representatives of the 39 Cooperative Societies were the signatories in the application for registration of Apex Society-RCDF. It is not disputed that RCDF has framed Regulations of 1980 and they have been adopted by various Societies. The State Government has power under section 123 of the Act of 2001 to prescribe by framing the Rules, service conditions of employees of the Society. In the absence of issuing statutory directions, the orders, which have been issued by the State Government, are also enforceable and they have the force of the law. The State Government has power under section 123 of the Act of 2001 to prescribe by framing the Rules, service conditions of employees of the Society. In the absence of issuing statutory directions, the orders, which have been issued by the State Government, are also enforceable and they have the force of the law. The Government has issued order on 16.6.1990 to the effect that all the Unions (Cooperative Societies) shall adopt Model Service Rules, Cadre and Recruitment Rules, Standing Orders as suggested by RCDF. The order of the State Government was complied with by RCDF and other constituent Cooperative Societies and all Unions/Cooperative Societies had executed agreement with RCDF. The Model Agreement contains clause (3) which is similar to clause (12) of the order of State Government, which is quoted above. Thus, the Cooperatives Societies have agreed to follow all Service Rules and Conditions prescribed by the RCDF for the employees of the Societies signing the agreement. In view of the aforesaid directions of the State Government and the provisions contained in the Model Agreement signed by various Cooperative Societies and considering the fact that Service Regulations of 1980 framed by RCDF have been adopted by various Cooperative Societies and considering the fact that there should be uniformity with respect to the age of superannuation, it would be appropriate that RCDF be directed to consider the question of enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years. Resultantly, the impugned resolutions passed by the RCDF and Societies are hereby quashed and the RCDF is directed to consider the question of enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years in accordance with the discussion made in the order and thereafter, the decision be sent for adoption to the Cooperative Societies and at that time, they can have say to the extent permissible under the law. It is made clear that the RCDF cannot act arbitrarily and has to act in accordance with law and discussion made in the order and if it is found that RCDF or Societies have acted in arbitrary manner, stern action would be taken by this Court. In the contempt petitions, we have noted that appropriate considerations and factors have not been taken into consideration inspite of clear and categorical directions issued by this Court and irrelevant aspects have been taken into consideration. In the contempt petitions, we have noted that appropriate considerations and factors have not been taken into consideration inspite of clear and categorical directions issued by this Court and irrelevant aspects have been taken into consideration. However, we accept the unconditional apology which has been tendered by the counsel appearing on behalf of the erring respondents, however, we warn them to be careful in future and not to act on irrelevant consideration and in violation of the observations/directions of this Court. The notices of contempt are discharged and contempt proceedings are dropped. Let the matter be reconsidered afresh within a period of two months from today. It was also submitted that certain incumbents, who were allowed to continue in service under the orders of this Court and Federation, have not been paid salary and they have been removed retrospectively. We direct that they cannot be deprived of their salary for the period for which they have rendered services. The respondents are bound to make payment of salary for the period for which they have rendered services. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the contempt petitions, special appeals and writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Kailash Chandra Joshi) J. (Arun Mishra) C.J.” 4. The matter went up to Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 7946/2012 -Ajmer Zilla Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh & anr. vs. Ajmer Zilla Dairy Employees Union & Ors. along with other connected SLPs and the same came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8/11/2012 with the following observations:- “5. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, we modify the order of the High Court and direct the Ajmer Zilla Dughdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh, Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. and Paschimi Rajasthan Dugadh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. to re-consider the issue of enhancement of age from 58 years to 60 years bearing in mind the communication of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, dated 17.09.2008 and the clarification made thereof. 6. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion in regard to the merit of the claim and it shall be open for the Federation and the Societies aforesaid to take a final decision without being influenced by the earlier decision of the High Court. The question of maintainability and other issues is also left open to be decided in an appropriate case. 7. The question of maintainability and other issues is also left open to be decided in an appropriate case. 7. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Sd/- (H.L. DATTU), J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD), J.” 5. The respondent – Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited (for short ` RCDF') accordingly on reconsideration of the issue took a decision in the matter relating to retiement age on 19/6/2013 enhancing the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years for its employees w.e.f. 12/6/2013, a copy of this connection dated 19/6/2013 is placed on record as Annex.10. The Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner, an independent Society, however, took a different decision on 17/7/2013 to keep the retirement age of its employees at 58 years only. A copy of that order dated 17/7/2013, which was in pursuance of Board of Directors decision dated 10/7/2013 in its 186th Meeting is placed on record as Annex.12. The Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner, an independent Society, however, took a different decision on 17/7/2013 to keep the retirement age of its employees at 58 years only. A copy of that order dated 17/7/2013, which was in pursuance of Board of Directors decision dated 10/7/2013 in its 186th Meeting is placed on record as Annex.12. It would be of relevance to quote the impugned order of the Board of Directors also of the aforesaid meeting of said Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner vide agenda item no.170(4):- izLrko fu.kZ; 170¼4½ la?k esa vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh vf/kokf”kZdh ¼lsokfuo`fr½ vk;q ds laca/k esa Jheku v/;{k egksn; ,oa vU; lapkyd lnL;ksa us fuEukuqlkj fyf[kr izLrko fd;k fd izcU/k lapkyd mjewy us dk;kZy; vkns’k dzekad % mjewy@laLFkk@2008@7476&87 fnukad 22-9-2008 tkjh dj deZpkfj;ksa@vf/kdkfj;ksa dh vf/kokf”kZdh ¼lsokfuo`fr½ vk;q 58 ls c<+kdj 60 o”kZ dh xbZ gSA mDr vkns’k fudkyus ls iwoZ jftLVªkj egksn; lgdkjh lfefr;kW] jktLFkku )kjk tkjh vkns’k dekad % fu;e 89 ikVZ&5 fnukad 17-9-2008 esa fn;s x;s vkns’kksa dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZ gS vr% vkns’k dzekad 7476&87 fnukad 22-9-2008 dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk la?k esa vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokfuo`fr vk;q 58 o”kZ gh j[kh tkrh gSA izcU/k lapkyd chdkusj la?k ,oa izfrfuf/k] vkjlhMh,Q us crk;k fd lsokfuo`fr vk;q dk izdj.k jkT; ljdkj ds Lrj ij fopkjk/khu gSA vr% jkT; ljdkj ,oa vkjlhMh,Q ds fn’kk funsZ’kkulqkj gh vfxze dk;Zokgh dh tk,A blds vykok ftyk nqX/k mRiknd lgdkjh la?k fyfeVsM ds mifu;e ds fcUnq la[;k 21-1 ds vuqlkj lapkyd e.My dsoy vf/kfu;e ,oa fu;eksa ds v/khu jgrs gq, gh dk;Z@fu.kZ; dj ldrk gSA mifu;e ds fcUnq la[;k 21-3 ¼c½ ds vuqlkj lsokeqfDr rFkk vU; lsok fLFkfr;ksa dk uhfr fu/kkZj.k laLFkkiu lfefr ds vf/kdkj dk fo”k; gSA vr% bl izdj.k ij igys laLFkkiu lfefr esa fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,A foLr`r fopkj foe’kZ i’pkr~ lapkyd e.My ds fuokZflr lnL;ksa us cgqer ds vk/kkj ij lsokfuo`fr vk;q 60 ls ?kVkdj 58 o”kZ djus dk fu.kZ; fy;kA v/;{k egksn; us crk;k fd jftLVªkj egksn; ds mijksDr vkns’k dzekad % fu;e@89 ikVZ&5 fnukad 17-9-2008 dh ikyuk izcU/k lapkyd us ugha dh gS] o lh/kk gh vkns’k fudkyk gS] ftl dkj.k mDr izdj.k dks mPp U;k;ky; esa esjs o vU; ftyk la?k ds v/;{k ys x;s gSA vkns’k dzekad % 7476&87 fnukad 22-9-2008 ds vkns’kksa dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA mPp U;k;ky; esa izdj.k esa fdlh izdkj dk LFkxu vkns’k ugha fn;k x;k gSA izcU/k lapkyd nqX/k la?k ¼mjewy½ chdkusj Jh vkj0,l0xksnkjk ,oa vkjlhMh,Q izfrfuf/k forh; lykgdkj Jh lat; lksyadh )kjk bl fu.kZ; ij viuh vlgefr ,oe~ vkifr ntZ djokbZ xbZA 6. The decision with regard to retirement age of the employees of RCDF and different Distirct Dairy Units was taken in pursuance of the guidelines laid down by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide his order dated 17/9/2008 in which the guidelines were laid down for deciding the said issue depending upon the profit & loss position of the respective RCDF & independent Cooperative Societies. A copy of the said order of the Registrar dated 17/9/2008 passed in pursuance of of his powers under Rule 39 (4) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003, is quoted below for ready reference:- ^^foHkkx )kjk ,rnlaca/k esa iwoZ esa tkjh leLr vkns’kksa dks vfryaf?kr djrs gq, jktLFkku lgdkjh lkslkbVh fu;e] 2003 ds fu;e 39 ¼4½ ds vUrxZr jkT; dh fofHkUu lgdkjh lkslkbfV;ksa ds dkfeZdksa vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa½ dh vf/kokf”kZdh vk;q ds lEcU/k esa fuEekafdr funsZ’k tkjh fd;s tkrs gS %& 1- jkT; dh ,slh lgdkjh lkslkbfV;ka] ftuesa jkT; ljdkj dh fgLlk iawth vFkok vuqnku vkfn ds :i esa jktdh; fgr fufgr ugh gS] muesa laLFkk dk lapkyd e.My laLFkk ds fgrksa dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, vius Lrj ls vius dkfeZdks dh vf/kokf”kZdh vk;q 58 o”kZ ls c<+kdj vf/kdre 60 o”kZ rd djus ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; ys ldsaxkA 2- jkT; dh ,slh lgdkjh lkslkbfV;ka] ftuesa jkT; ljdkj dh fgLlk iwath vFkok vuqnkj vkfn ds :i esa jktdh; fgr fufgr gS] muesa dkfeZdksa dh vf/kokf”kZdh vk;q ds laca/k esa fuEukuqlkj izfdz;k viuk;h tkuh misf{kr gS %& ¼d½ ,slh lgdkjh lkslkbfV;ka] ftuesa foxr rhu forh; o”kksZ esa gkfu ugh jgh gS vFkkZr~ foxr rhu forh; o”kksZ esa fujUrj ‘kq) ykHk jgk gS rFkk lkFk gh ftuesa dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa dh la[;k muds Lohd`r LVkWQ LVªsUFk ls vf/kd ugh gS] mudk lapkyd e.My laLFkk ds fgrks dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, vius Lrj ls vius dkfeZdks dh vf/kokf”kZdh vk;q 58 o”kZ ls c<+kdj vf/kdre 60 o”kZ rd djus ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; ys ldsxkA ¼[k½ ,slh lgdkjh lkslkbfV;ka] ftuesa foxr rhu forh; o”kksZ esa ls fdlh Hkh o”kZ gkfu dh fLFkfr jgh gks] vFkok ftuesa dk;Zjr dkfeZdks dh la[;k laLFkk dh Lohd`r LVkWQ LVsªUFk ls vf/kd gS] mudk lapkyd e.My ;fn laLFkk ds dkjksckj vkfn O;kid fgrksa dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, vius dkfeZdksa dh vf/kokf”kZdh vk;q 58 o”kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o”kZ rd djus dh vuq’kalk djrk gS] rks lapkyd e.My ds bl vk’k; ds izLrko dks laLFkk dk eq[; dk;Zdkjh fu/kkZfjr izk:i esa v?kksgLrk{kjdrkZ )kjk izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh dks izsf”kr djsxkA izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh izkIr izLrkoksa ds laca/k esa foHkkxh; funsZ’kksa dk ikyu djrs gq, vfxze vko’;d dk;Zokgh djsaxsA ,slh laLFkkvksa ds fy, laLFkk dh vksj ls izsf”kr fd;s tkus okys izLrko dk izk:i ,oa izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjks )kjk dh tkus okyh dk;Zokgh ds laca/k esa i`Fkd ls funsZ’k tkjh fd;s tk jgs gSA ¼lq/kka’k iar½ jftLVªkj** 7. Assailing the aforesaid decision of the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner, the petitioners have contended before this Court that the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner cannot take a contrary decision than the one taken by the apex body, namely RCDF, which in its decision vide Annex.10 dated 19/6/2013 had decided to enhance the retirement age of its employees from 58 years to 60 years and, therefore, the resolution of the Board of Directors of the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner deserves to be quashed by this Court. 8. Mr. M.S.Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners also vehemently submitted that the bye-laws of the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner empowers the Establishment Committee to take such decision under Clause 21.3(b), which comprises of Chairman, one representative of NDDB, one representative of RCDF and one representative of Registrar along with the Managing Direcdtor of the respective District Union and it is also envisaged that only the said Establishment Committee can take decision regarding appointment, posting, retirement and other service conditions of the employees. He urged that, therefore, the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner is, therefore, without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 9. Per contra, Mr. D.K.Parihar and Mr. He urged that, therefore, the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner is, therefore, without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 9. Per contra, Mr. D.K.Parihar and Mr. K.K.Bhati vehemently opposed these writ petitions and submitted that Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner is in huge financial losses and drawing the attention of the Court towards the Balance Sheet of the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner, which is placed at Annex.R-3/1, submitted that accumulated loss of the said Sangh is to the extent of Rs.18.32 crores as per the Balance Sheet as on 31/3/2007 and in view of consistent losses for more than three years, in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Registrar vide letter dated 17/9/2008, quoted above, the respondent Sangh advisedly took the decision of keeping the retirement age at 58 years only and not to enhance the same to 60 years and in the absence of any rebuttal material placed before this Court showing the financial condition of the Sangh otherwise, the petitioners cannot successively challenge the Resolution of Board of Directors of the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner which is the higest Management body of the respondent Sangh and consequently, the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that even RCDF vide Annex.R-3/3 dated 2/7/2013 had clarified to the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner that they were independent in this regard and decision taken by the RCDF to enhance the age of retirement to 60 years will not bind the present respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner. The relevant extract of the letter dated 2/7/2013 of RCDF is quoted below for ready reference:- Rajasthan Co-Operative Dairy Federation Limited jktLFkku dks&vkWijsfVo Ms;jh QSMjs’ku fyfeVsM dzekad % vkjlhMh,Q@laLFkk@,Q-1¼bZ½@2013@14885] fnukad % 2-7-2013 izcU/k lapkyd mrjh jktLFkku lgdkjh nqX/k mRiknd la?k fyfeVsM chdkusj] jktLFkkuA fo”k; % vf/kokf”kZdh vk;q ds lEcU/k esaA mijksDr fo”k;kUrxZr vkids i= dzekad laLFkk@,Q-¼½@chdk@,uMhvks@2013 fnukad 28-6-2013 ds dze esa lwfpr dj ys[k gS fd bl dk;kZy; ds vkns’k dzekad vkjlhMh,Q@laLFkk @,Q-1¼bZ½lsokfuo`fr@2013@12520&55 fnukad 19 twu] 2013 )kjk vkjlhMh,Q ,oa bldh v/khuLFk bdkb;ksa esa dk;Zjr vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh vf/kokf”kZdh vk;q 58 o”kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o”kZ fnukad 12 twu] 2013 ls dh xbZ FkhA lUnfHkZr vf/kokf”kZdh vk;q ds dsoy vkjlhMh,Q ,oa bldh v/khuLFk bdkb;ksa ds fy, gh ekU; gSA ftyk nqX/k mRiknd lgdkjh la?k fyfeVsM vkjlhMh,Q dh v/khuLFk bdkb;ka ugha gS budk viuk Lora= lapkyd e.My gSA vr% mDr vkns’k mrjh jktLFkku lgdkjh nqX/k mRiknd la?k fyfeVsM] chdkusj ds vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa ij ykxw ugha gSA mDr i= izcU/k lapkyd] vkjlhMh,Q ds vuqeksnuksijkUr tk fd;k tkrk gSA ¼gjh’k ykyokuh½ egkizcU/kd ¼dkfeZd ,oa iz’kklu½** 11. Learned counsel for the respondents also urged that after hearing both the parties at length, the interim order granted by this Court came to be vacated by the coordinate bench of this Court on 26/9/2013. The relevant extract of the said order vacating the interim relief in the present case of Shanker Lal is also quoted below for ready reference:- “18. Coming to the prayer for interim relief, it is to be noticed that the age of superannuation of the employees of the respondent-Union is governed by Regulation 19 of the Regulations 1992 which prescribes the age of superannuation as 58 years. As noticed above, pursuant to the directions issued by this court modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid, the respondent-Union has already taken a decision not to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. As noticed above, pursuant to the directions issued by this court modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid, the respondent-Union has already taken a decision not to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. It is not in dispute that in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the directions of the Registrar vide order dated 17.9.2008, the respondent-Union and other Cooperative Societies were required to take the decision regarding the enhancement of the age of superannuation of its employees taking into consideration their own financial condition and other relevant aspects as specified and therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the decision of the RCDF shall be ipso facto applicable to all the Milk Unions, is prima-facie not found acceptable. Moreover, the Board of Directors of the respondent-Union has also taken a decision that the Rules adopted by the RCDF shall not apply to its employees unless specifically adopted by its Board of Directors. Be that as it may, indisputably, as on the date, the age of superannuation of the employees of the respondent-Union remains 58 years and no employee can claim enhancement of the age of superannuation as a matter of right. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, no prima-facie case is made out for grant of interim relief as prayed for. Needless to say that the right and interest of the petitioners regarding their entitlement for consequential benefits in case the petitions succeed and the age of retirement of the employees of the respondent-Union is directed to be enhanced from 58 years to 60 years, can always be taken care of by the Court while passing the final orders. 19. For the aforementioned reasons, no case for grant of interim relief as prayed for is made out. The stay petitions are therefore, rejected. 20. However, having regard to the controversy involved, the matters need to be finally heard at an early date. Accordingly, the matters are directed to be listed for hearing as soon as the respondent no. 2 is duly served. Learned counsels appearing for the respondent No.1 & 4 and the respondent no. 3 may also file the reply to the writ petition, if any, in the meantime. Sd/- (Sangeet Lodha), J.” 12. Accordingly, the matters are directed to be listed for hearing as soon as the respondent no. 2 is duly served. Learned counsels appearing for the respondent No.1 & 4 and the respondent no. 3 may also file the reply to the writ petition, if any, in the meantime. Sd/- (Sangeet Lodha), J.” 12. About the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the decision is to be taken by the Establishment Committee, learned counsel for the respondents urged that the highest management body of the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner, namely; the Board of Directors have taken the aforesaid decision in the matter and same cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Since the Establishment Committee is the another Committee and its constitution under Clause 21.3(b), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be said to be excluding the jurisdiction of Board of Directors itself, which is entitled to take all policy decisions in this regard. Learned counsel for the respondents also urged that the decision having been taken in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the Registrar vide letter dated 17/9/2008 & directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court & clarification given by the RCDF itself, the said decision of Board of Directors is unassailable and the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 13. I have heard the learned counsels and perused the record including the judgments cited at the bar. This Court is of the considered opinion that this Court cannot issue any mandate to the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner to enhance the retirement age of its employees to 60 years as against the decision of Board of Directors to keep the said retirement age at 58 years. It is a policy matter undoubtedly, which has to be taken by the highest body of the concerned employer – Society itself. The position of accumulated losses of the District Sangh has not been rebutted by the petitioners in any manner. The accumulated losses, which were to the extent of Rs.18 crores as on 31/3/2007 compelled the respondent District Sangh to keep the retirement age at 58 years so as to avoid further increase of such losses by way of additional payment to the employees if their services were to be extended upto 60 years. 14. The accumulated losses, which were to the extent of Rs.18 crores as on 31/3/2007 compelled the respondent District Sangh to keep the retirement age at 58 years so as to avoid further increase of such losses by way of additional payment to the employees if their services were to be extended upto 60 years. 14. This Court finds little force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that since RCDF took a different decision to enhance the retirement age from 58 to 60 years, the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner was also bound to enhance the retirement age to 60 years inasmuch as these are two are independently incorporated bodies and their power to take separte policy decisions cannot be questioned. The RCDF in a federal structure of the Dairies in the State of Rajasthan cannot curtail the powers of independent District Sanghs to take their own policy decision depending upon their profit and loss position, as the case may be. The RCDF itself had gone on record to say vide communication Annex.R-3/3 dated 2/7/2013, as quoted above, that respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner is free to take its own decision in this regard. The decision of RCDF does not bind them in any manner. Even Hon'ble the Apex Court watering down the effect of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court left RCDF & indpendent Societies fre to take their own respective decisions in this regard in view of the guidelines of Registrar vide letter dated 17/9/2008 & subsequent clarifications vide Hon'ble Surpeme Court order quoted above. Therefore, the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected and same is accordingly rejected. 15. The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that Establishment Committee only could take decision in this regard and not the Board of Directors of the said Sangh is also without any substance. Therefore, the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected and same is accordingly rejected. 15. The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that Establishment Committee only could take decision in this regard and not the Board of Directors of the said Sangh is also without any substance. The Board of Directors, admittedly, is the highest management body in the said Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 and, therefore, even if the bye laws delineating the power of Establishment Committee including its jurisdiction on the issues relating to appointment, posting, retirement and other service conditions of its employees, the same does not lay down a water tight and straightjacket jurisdiction for the Establishment Committee so as to exclude the jurisdiction of Board of Directors of the said respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner to take such decision. The said contention is also liable to fail & is accordingly hereby rejected. 16. Thus, on the both counts, this Court is satisfied that the decision taken by the respondent Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner to keep the retirement age at 58 years is reasonable and justified and does not call for any interference by this Court, much less calling for any mandamus direction to the contrary. 17. The writ petitions are, thus, found to be devoid of merit and same are accordingly dismissed. No costs.