Chandigarh, March 21 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled that the Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Service Societies Service Rules, 1997, mandating retiral benefits to its employees are ultra vires of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The petitions were from retired employees of various co-operative societies from Punjab seeking the release of their retiral benefits along with interest for the delayed payment in terms of the 1997 service rules. The high court bench of justice HS Brar disposed of the petitions terming them "non-maintainable" and observed that the registrar had no legal authority to frame these rules, and hence, employees of co-operative societies cannot claim retirement benefits. The court added that the co-operative societies are autonomous bodies, managed by elected committees and governed by its bylaws, and are free to determine pay scales and service conditions based on their financial viability. "Such co-operative societies are at liberty to frame their own service rules and determine the pay scales and emoluments of their employees, keeping in view their financial health and operational viability," it said. It further added that through the implementation of the 1997 service rules, the registrar has effectively assumed the role of a "super employer" and mandated that co-operative societies, which are independent legal entities, provide retirement benefits to their employees on a par with the employees of the state government. The court stated that the 1961 Act is the principal legislation governing registration, regulation, and functioning of co-operative societies in the state, and its section 85 vests the power to frame rules solely with the state government. But it does not "authorise further delegation". The state government can't delegate its rule-making power to the registrar, and thus, the 1997 service rules framed by the registrar are not statutory, the court noted. ".where a statute confers a power on a named authority, it is prima facie intended to be exercised only by that authority to the exclusion of all others, unless the parent statute permits further delegation expressly or by necessary implication," the court said, adding that the move was "legally unsustainable and practically unworkable"....