( 1. ) KEEPING in view the identical nature of assail and the identic prayer for mitigation of the grievance, this batch of writ petitions was heard analogously and is disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience the facts exposited in W. P. No. 12904/2005 are enumerated herein.

( 2. ) THE petitioner, a village extension organizer working in Jabalpur Co- operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. , stood compulsorily retired after completion of service of 20 years by virtue of the impugned order dated 31-5-2003 by the General Manager of the aforesaid Union, respondent No. 2, vide Annexure P-8 on the foundation that a decision has been taken by the Cooperative Society to compulsorily retire him after taking recourse to Regulation 13 (1) of the M. P. Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. , Bhopal (Employees Recruitment, Classification and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as the Regulations].

( 3. ) THE facts that have been pleaded in great details in this writ petition need not be adverted to, for we arc only inclined to revert to the constitutional validity of Regulation 13 (1) as that is the challenge in this writ petition. It is unnecessary to emphasise, the order of compulsory retirement as contained in Annexure P-8 has been attacked elementarily on the foundation that the regulation being unconstitutional, as a sequitur, the order of compulsory retirement has to pave the path of vulnerability. Hence, we shall first dwell upon the challenge with regard to the acceptability and defensibility of the Rule in the constitutional backdrop and thereafter if felt requisite, the second assail shall be reverted to.

( 4. ) IT is contended in the writ petition that Regulation 13 (1) of the Regulation is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, irrational and confers unbridled and uncanalised power on the authority and thereby invites the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We think it seemly to reproduce the English translation of the same: 13. Compulsory Retirement:

(1) The appointing authority is conferred with the power to retire an employee who has completed 20 years of his service without ascribing any reason. For the aforesaid, no claim for special compensation shall be entertained. The said power can only be exercised when in the opinion of appointing authority it is in the interest of the Federation and it can be done only after issuance of three months prior notice.

( 5. ) QUESTIONING the validity of the said regulation it is submitted by Mr. A. M. Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Mr. Sushil Kumar Mishra that the rule is bereft of guidelines and, therefore, it is unconstitutional. It is contended by him if such power is conferred on the appointing authority it would per se result in arbitrary exercise of power and, therefore, the rule deserves to be stuck down as unconstitutional. The learned Senior Counsel canvassed that an employee in a co-operative society does not get any kind of pension which is available to the employees of the State Government and ergo, the conception of compulsory retirement which is prevalent in the State Government after rendering of service of 20 years, cannot be ushered into in the realm of Co-operative society as it eventually leads an employee on the path of impecuniousity and in the ultimate eventuate renders him jobless. The learned Senior Counsel has further contended that rules are statutory in nature and statutory regulation should not mortgage its conscience to take colour of arbitrariness and once that is done the concepts of fair procedure, reasonableness and the principles engrafted under the Wedensbury Principles get ingloriously and unceremoniously buried. To bolster his submission he has commended us to the decision rendered in the cases of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brajo Nath Ganguly AIR1986 SC 1571 , (1986 )3 Complj1 (SC ), 1986 Lablc1312 , (1986 )II LLJ171 SC , 1986 (1 )SCALE799 , (1986