JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The writ petitioner who is the respondent No.3 in the appeal challenged a decision dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Managing Director-cum-Administrator of the appellant-Bank not to enhance the retirement age of the employees of the Bank from 58 years to 60 years. 3. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies had issued an order on 17.9.2008 authorizing Cooperative Societies which were running in profits for previous three financial years and were operating within the sanctioned staff strength to enhance the retirement age of their employees from 58 to 60 years. 4. The Collector, Nagaur was acting as the Administrator of the appellant Bank because the Board of Director was disbanded. He collated the balance sheet of the Bank for the three preceding financial years, being 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and recorded that the same showed that the Bank was in profit. He also appraised the working strength and found that the working strength of the Bank was within the sanctioned strength. However, he took the decision on 16.12.2008 declining to enhance the age of superannuation expressing apprehension that future losses may arise on account of extra burden emanating from waiver of agricultural loans proposed by the Central Government. 5. This led the respondent to file a writ petition. 6. The learned Single Judge noted that in the instant case the decision of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to hedge the enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 years by considering whether the Banks were running in profits for the preceding three years and were operating within the sanctioned staff strength, was required to be complied with and as a matter of fact the Administrator did so. The learned Single Judge held that the decision not to enhance the retirement age was premised on an apprehension concerning perennial future loss. This consideration has been held to be outside the power of the Administrator. 7. We concur. 8. The impugned decision also notes the decision of the Supreme Court dated 8th November, 2012 in Civil Appeal No.7946/2012 Ajmer Zilla Dugdh Utpadak V/s Ajmer Zilla Dairy Employees Union which reads as under:- "1. No orders on application for impleadment in C.A.@S.L.P. (C)No.9457/2012. 2. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 3. 7. We concur. 8. The impugned decision also notes the decision of the Supreme Court dated 8th November, 2012 in Civil Appeal No.7946/2012 Ajmer Zilla Dugdh Utpadak V/s Ajmer Zilla Dairy Employees Union which reads as under:- "1. No orders on application for impleadment in C.A.@S.L.P. (C)No.9457/2012. 2. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 3. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and dated order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9818, 9822, 3658, 3940 and 11864/2011. 4. We have heard Mr.P.P.Rao and Mr.Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeals @ S.L.P.(C)Nos.8440 and 9457 of 2012 and Ms.Madhurima Tatia, learned counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal @S.L.P. (C)Nos.10407-10409/2012 and Mr.Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondents in Civil Appeals @ S.L.P. (C)Nos.8440 and 9457 of 2012 and Mr.M.R.Calla, learned senior counsel for the respondents in Civil Appeals @ S.L.P. (C)Nos.10407-10409/2012. 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. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of. No costs." 9. The final directions issued by the learned Singe Judge while disposing of the writ petition reads as under:- "In this view of the matter, the writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The impugned order Annexure-9 dated 16.12.2008 is quashed and set aside. The Bank is directed to pass a fresh reasoned order on the question of enhancement of retirement age of its employees for the relevant period keeping in view the directions given by the Division Bench in the case of Dairy Karamchari Union, Jodhpur Vs. The impugned order Annexure-9 dated 16.12.2008 is quashed and set aside. The Bank is directed to pass a fresh reasoned order on the question of enhancement of retirement age of its employees for the relevant period keeping in view the directions given by the Division Bench in the case of Dairy Karamchari Union, Jodhpur Vs. R.K.Trashal & Ors. (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajmer Zilla Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh & Anr. V/s Ajmer Zilla Dairy Employees Union & Ors. (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be placed in each file." 10. In view of the facts noted above and the decision passed by the Supreme Court we find no infirmity in the impugned order requiring the appellant Bank to pass a fresh reasoned order on the question of enhancement of age of its employees keeping in view the decision of the Division Bench of this Court as well as the decision of the Supreme Court. 11. The appeal is dismissed.