JUDGMENT : - Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—The present three petitioners who retired from the services of respondent No.3 – Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Bhilwara (BZDUSSL, for short) vide order Annex.9 dtd.1.9.2009 and they were retired at the age of superannuation of 58 years as fixed by the respondent No.3 – BZDUSSL at that time w.e.f. 1.9.2009. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of present writ petition on the ground that the Board of Directors of respondent No.3 - BZDUSSL took a decision in its meeting held on 9.3.2013 only that in view of guidelines given by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in the Circular dtd.17.9.2008 in view of consistent profit position of the respondent No.3, they have decided to increase the superannuation age of its employees from 58 years to 60 years w.e.f. 1.5.2013. 3. The present petitioners who admittedly retired from the services of respondent No.3 way back on 1.9.2009 submitted before this Court through their counsel that the said decision of the Board of Directors deciding cut off date of 1.5.2013 is illegal and it ought to be given retrospective effect from 17.9.2008 since the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies in its guidelines/ Circular dtd.17.9.2008 had directed the respective District Unions to take their own decision in this regard, whether they would increase the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years or not depending upon their profit/loss position and the petitioners further submitted that had such decision been taken on that very day, presumably, the petitioners would have been entitled to the consequential benefits and more particularly the benefit of increased gratuity amount since they retried after 17.9.2008 or 1.9.2009. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Girish Joshi urged that earlier the respondent – BZDUSSL had fixed the superannuation age of 58 years despite the fact that the said BZDUSSL was consistently in profits since the year 2004 and the matter reached upto Hon'ble Supreme Court and in pursuance of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court dtd.8.11.2012 in the case of Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh and anr. vs. Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh and ors. vs. Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh and ors. - Civil Appeal No.7946/2012 (SLP Civil No.8440/2012) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the respective District Milk Productry Unions or Sangh to take their respective decisions in this regard of increase in the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years bearing in mind the Circular of Registrar dtd.17.9.2008 and clarifications made thereafter. In pursuance of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the various District Unions took independent decisions about the age of superannuation of its employees and it appears that that respondent No.3 - BZDUSSL took a decision in its Board of Directors meeting dtd.9.3.2013 w.e.f. 1.5.2013, the superannuation age was decided to be increased from 58 years to 60 years vide Annex.17, the communication dtd.30.4.2013. Mr. Girish Joshi, therefore, submitted that the cut off date of 1.5.2013 fixed by the respondent - Union is arbitrarily fixed and cut off date should be taken as 17.9.2008, the date of the Registrar's Circular. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material on record. 6. This Court finds little force in the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners and there appears to be no error in the decision of respondent No.3 – BZDUSSL in the increase in the superannuation age for its employees from 58 years to 60 years w.e.f. 1.5.2013. Neither such decision of the Board of directors has been given any retrospective effect nor any such mandamus direction can be given to the Respondent - BZDUSSL to give such retrospective effect to its Board decision. The said decision has been taken after a process of litigation upto Supreme Court between the employees and various District Unions and federal body – RCDF and in the said decision making process, if the Board of Directors of respondent – Union has now decided in the year 2013 after Supreme Court decision dtd.8.11.2012 to enhance the superannuation from 58 years to 60 years w.e..f 1.5.2013, such increase in age cannot be stretched back to the year 2008. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Girish Joshi that since the Registrar issued these guidelines on 17.9.2008 and therefore, that date should be taken as cut off date does not have any force. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Girish Joshi that since the Registrar issued these guidelines on 17.9.2008 and therefore, that date should be taken as cut off date does not have any force. Firstly, such guidelines/Circular does not have any statutory character and secondly they are merely guidelines for respective District Unions or Sanghs for taking their decision by the competent body, namely, the Board of Directors of respondent – District Union, which itself being the registered Society is a body corporate governed by the relevant bye-laws and the Circular dtd.17.9.2008, which is quoted below also does not say so that the subsequently taken decisions of the respondent - District Unions will be effective w.e.f. 17.9.2008 nor could it be possibly said by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. On the contrary, Circular dtd.17.9.2008 stipulates that the respondent – District Unions will be free to take their respective decisions in this regard on the issue of superannuation age. The said decisions to be taken by the District Union are certainly envisaged to be taken at the future point of time and not w.e.f. 17.9.2008 itself. On the contrary, Circular dtd.17.9.2008 stipulates that the respondent – District Unions will be free to take their respective decisions in this regard on the issue of superannuation age. The said decisions to be taken by the District Union are certainly envisaged to be taken at the future point of time and not w.e.f. 17.9.2008 itself. The Circular dated 17.9.2008 is quoted below for ready reference : ^^dk;kZy; jftLVªkj lgdkjh lfefr;k] jktLFkku] t;iqj Øekad 15¼7½ lfol@fu;e@89 ikVZ 6 fnukad 17-09-2008 vkns'k ¼jktLFkku lgdkjh lkslkbVh fu;e] 2003 ds fu;e 39 ds vUrxZr½ foHkkx }kjk ,rn~laca/k esa iwoZ esa tkjh leLr vkns'k dk vfoyafcr djrs gq, jktLFkku lgdkjh lkslkbVh fu;e 2003 ds fu;e 39¼4½ ds vUrxZr jkT; dh fofHkUu lgdkjh lkslkbfV;ksa ds dkfeZdksa ¼vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa½ dh vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q ds laca/k esa fuEufyf[kr funsZ’k tkjh fd;s tkrs gS% 1- jkT; dh ,slh lgdkjh lkslkbfV;k ftuesa jkT; ljdkj dh fgLlk iwath vFkok vuqnku vkfn ds :i esa jktdh; fgr fufgr ugha gS muesa laLFkk dk lapkyd e.My laLFkk ds fgrksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vius Lrj ls vius dkfeZdksa 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 2- jkT; dh ,slh lgdkjh lkslkbfV;k ftuesa jkT; ljdkj dh fgLlk iwath vFkok vuqnku vkfn ds :i esa jktdh; fgr fufgr gS] muesa dkfeZdksa dh vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q ds laca/k esa fuEukuqlkj izfØ;k viuk;h tkuh visf{kr gS%& ¼d½ ,slh lgdkjh lkslkbfV;k] ftuesa foxr rhu foÙkh; o"kksZa esa gkfu ugha jgh gS vFkkZr~ muesa foxr rhu foÙkh; o"kksZ esa fujUrj 'kq) ykHk jgk gS rFkk lkFk gh ftuesa dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa dh la[;k muds Loh—r LVkQ LVªUFk ls vf/kd ugha gS] mudk lapkyu e.My laLFkk ds fgrksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vius Lrj ls vius dkfeZdksa dh vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj vf/kdre 60 o"kZ rd djus dh laca/k esa fu.kZ; ys ldsxkA ¼[k½ ,slh lgdkjh lkslkbfV;k ftuesa foxr rhu foÙkh; o"kksZa esa ls fdlh Hkh o"kZ gkfu dh fLFkfr jgh gks] vFkok ftuesa dk;Zjr dkfeZdk dh la[;k laLFkk dh Loh—r LVkQ LVªsUFk 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 vf/kdre 60 o"kZ rd djus dh vuq'kaLkk djrk gS rks lapkyd e.My ds bl vk'k; ls izLrko dks laLFkk dk eq[; dk;Zdkjh fu/kkZfjr izk:i esa v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk izkf/k—r vf/kdkjh dks izsf"kr djsxkA izkf/k—r vf/kdkjh }kjk izLrkoksa ds laca/k esa foHkkxh; funsZ'kksa dk ikyu djrs gq, vfxze vko';d dk;Zokgh djsaxsA ,slh laLFkkvksa ds fy;s laLFkk dh vksj ls izsf"kr fd;s tkus okys izLrko dk izk:i ,oa izkf/k—r vf/kdkjh }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** 8. Merely because the respondent – BZDUSSL was in profit since the year 2004 as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners as per figures given in the chart produced as Annex.19, subject to the verification of the petitioners' figures to be correct, that also cannot compel the respondent – BZDUSSL to take a decision to increase the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years with effect from the first year in which it has profits, namely, in th year 2004. 9. This Court dealing with these issues regarding the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years in the case of Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. decided a batch of writ petitions in the recent past on 20.2.2013 and repelling the contentions raised by the petitioner Shankar Lal vs. State and ors. - SBCWP No.7404/2013 decided on 20.2.2013, this Court decided as under: “13. I have heard the learned counsels and perused the record in-cluding 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. 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 separate 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 & independent Societies free 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. 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.” 7. 17. The writ petitions are, thus, found to be devoid of merit and same are accordingly dismissed. No costs.” 7. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the discretion vested in the respondent – namely, Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. exercised in a fair manner which is reflected in its decision vide Annex.17 dtd.30.4.2013 to increase the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years w.e.f. 1.5.2013 cannot be faulted in any manner nor it can be given only retrospective effect, much less at the instance of the employees, who have retired much prior to said cut off date of 1.5.2013 like the present petitioners who admittedly retired on 1.9.2009 at the age of 58 years, when the superannuation age was 58 years only . Giving of such retrospective effect to the decision of the respondent - BZDUSSL would amount to substituting any other decision for such a policy decision taken by the Board of Directors of the respondent – Union and that cannot be done even by this Court. No arbitrariness, unreasonable classification or illegality is found in fixing the cut off date of 1.5.2013 in the decision of respondent – BZDUSSL. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are found to be devoid of merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.