( 1. ) THIS order will decide W. P. No. 7114/2002 (Zila Sahakari Krishi Aur gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Mandla and others Vs. Teerath Prasad Rajak and another), W. P. No. 7115/2002 (Zila Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas bank Maryadit, Mandla and others Vs. Vijay Kumar Shrivas and another),w. P. No. 7116/2002 (Zila Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, mandla and others Vs. Phool Singh Tandeshwar and another), W. P. No. 7117/2002 (Zila Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Mandla and others Vs. Nand Kumar Tiwari and another), W. P. No. 7118/2002 (Zila sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Mandla and others Vs. Satish Kumar Songsare and another) and W. P. No. 7119/2002 (Zila Sahakari krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Mandla and others Vs. Munna Lal soni and another) involving similar facts and law. The facts are taken from w. P. No. 7113/2002 (Zila Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, mandla and others Vs. Vasudev Gupta and another ).

( 2. ) RESPONDENT Vasudev Gupta and other respondents of other cases are employees of petitioner/bank. As the election of said Bank could not be held within the stipulated period, consequently the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, invoking the powers of Registrar under sub-section 8 (ii)of Section 49 of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as act for short) appointed Collector, Mandla as Officer -in -charge of the bank and directed to work, till the elections are held, with direction to manage the affairs of the Bank. This order (Annexure P-2) was passed on 15-2-1997. Thereafter, vide order dated 3-3-2000 the respondents were retired compulsorily invoking the powers under sub-rule 71 (1) of M. P. Sahakari Krishi Aur gramin Vikas Bank Karmachari Seva (Niyojan, Nibandhan tatha Unki Karya sthiti) Niyam, 1983. Respondents aggrieved by aforesaid order filed a dispute under Section 55 (2) of the Act, before Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, jabalpur, which was registered as Case No. 55 (2)-7/2000. The Joint Registrar found that the order retiring compulsorily the respondents was not approved by the Registrar, which was necessary for the Officer -in -charge and the officer -in -charge can not take the policy decision as per circular dated 9-6-1989 and the Officer -in -charge - Collector, Mandla was appointed to discharge the functions of the Bank and he was having no right to take policy decision. Consequently, the order directing retirement compulsorily of respondents is illegal and accordingly it was set aside. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure A- 6), which is identical in all the cases on facts and law, the Bank has filed present petitions.

( 3. ) THE contentions of learned Counsel for petitioners is as under:-

(1) That the Commissioner -cum -Registrar, Co-operative societies vide Annexure P-l dated 25-8-99 has amended the service conditions and accordingly any employee who has attained the age of 50 years or completed 20 years of service may be retired, without showing any reason, by serving three months notice or payment of three months salary. As the aforesaid rule empowers the Officer -in -charge to retire any employee compulsorily, then there was no necessity to seek approval from the registrar. (2) That the aforesaid order under sub-section 8 (ii) of Section 49 may be read with sub-section (13) of Section 53, which empower the Officer -in -charge to exercise all or any of the powers and to discharge all or any of the functions of the committee or of any officer of the society, and to take all such actions, as may be required in the interest of the society. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Officer -in -charge was valid and ought not to have been set aside.

In this regard, learned Counsel for petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2001) 2 SCC 305, wherein it has been held in Para 12, which reads as under:-

"12. Compulsory ret