employees, who were working in the ration depots. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge in Ext.P4 has already become final. In obedience to that, Ext.P6 order has been passed by the Joint Registrar. So, the Joint Registrar has to take further action to implement Ext.P6 which was affirmed in Ext.P10. But, we notice that there are other claimants also against the Society. The 10th respondent claims that the appellant is liable to pay an amount of Rupees two crores to it. If the claim of the contesting respondents is genuine, similarly placed persons who were employees of ARDs can also put forward similar claims. In view of the above position, we feel that appropriate modification should be made to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. In this context, we also note that the Joint Registrar is already under an obligation to implement the directions in Ext.P4 judgment. But, the implementation can only be subject to law. If there is an order to wind up the Society, the amounts due from it can be paid only on pro-rata basis from the amounts collected by the Liquidator. So, the Joint Registrar shall proceed with further steps to effect payment to the contesting respondents and others and such steps can be by sale of the properties belonging to the Society or other steps found appropriate on the facts of the case. We are not relieving the Joint Registrar of his liability to ensure payment of the amount due to the contesting respondents herein. But, he is given the freedom to devise modalities for securing that end.