ORDER PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. : – This intra Court appeal takes exception to order dated 11-11-2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 15467 of 2016, whereby, petition filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was working as Peon with the appellant-Bank, namely, Bhopal Cooperative Central Bank. Vide order dated 29-7-2015 (Annexure P/3), he was directed to be superannuated w.e.f. 31-7-2015 presuming the age of superannuation as 60 years. After his superannuation, he made several representations requesting the appellant-Bank to reinstate him upto the age of 62 years on the basis of the decision taken by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies directing enhancement of the age of Class-IV employees of the District Central Cooperative Bank from 60 years to 62 years. Since nothing was done, therefore, he filed a petition before this Court which has been allowed by the impugned order, against which, the appellant-Bank has filed the instant writ appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned order by ignoring the fact that the appellant-Bank had adopted the resolution for enhancement of the age of Class-IV employees in its meeting dated 8-9-2015 and the respondent No. 1 stood retired on 31-7-2015, therefore, he has no right to continue upto the age of 62 years. He also submitted that the learned Single Judge has further erred while directing the appellant-Bank to grant all consequential benefits including the payment of salary etc. for the period upto the age of 62 years. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the record. 5. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that in exercise of powers conferred under section 55(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “Act of 1960”), the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies Madhya Pradesh has passed an order dated 31-3-2012 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the age of superannuation of Class-IV employees i.e. Supervisor, Daftari, jamadar, Peon, Farrash, Sweeper and Chowkidar working in District Cooperative Central Bank has been enhanced from 60 to 62 years by amending Rule No. 71.1.1 of the Service Rules dated 3-1-2014 of the District Co-operative Central Bank. The said amendment was substituted vide order dated 30-2-2015 (Annexure P-2) which reads as under : – 6. The said amendment was substituted vide order dated 30-2-2015 (Annexure P-2) which reads as under : – 6. A perusal of the provision of section 55 of the Act of 1960 clearly shows that the rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a Society or class of Societies can be framed by the Registrar. It further shows that the Society or class of Societies to which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable are under an obligation to comply with the order which may be passed by the Registrar in this behalf. In the instant case, admittedly, the order passed by the Registrar substituting Rule 71.1.1 of the Service Rules has not been challenged by any one and, the appellant is not in a position to challenge the authority of the Registrar in passing the aforesaid order. Once the Registrar framed the Rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a Society or class of Societies, the concerned Society or its employee is under an obligation to comply with the same. Therefore, the resolution of the appellant-Bank dated 8-9-2015 cannot defer the enforceability of the amended Rules with effect from the date on which such a Rule has been framed by the Registrar. In other words, the right of the respondent to continue in employment till 62 years of age accrued on 3-1-2014 when applicable rule was amended enhancing the age of superannuation. The mere fact that the appellant bank passed a resolution to apply the amended Rule subsequently i.e., on 8-9-2015, could not defeat the right of the respondent to retire at the age of 62 years. Hence, the argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable. 7. Having held that the respondent No. 1 was legally entitled to continue in service upto the age of 62 years and he was ready and willing to work upto the age of 62 years, the learned Single Judge was right in directing payment of consequential benefits to the respondent No. 1. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the instant writ appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.