IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.59 of 2007 1. The Siwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Siwan through its Managing Director. 2. The Managing Director, Siwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Siwan, District Siwan……Respondents- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Rergistrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar,Patna. 4. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Soceities (Credit), New Secretariat, Patna. 5. The District Co-operative Officer, Siwan. 6. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Siwan Circle, District Siwan ………….Respondents. 7. Birendra Kumar Rai, son of Sri Shiv Pujan Rai, resident of Village Sadipur, Navatola, P.S. and P.O. Gorea Kothi,Distt. Siwan. 8. Yogendra Kumar, son of late Janardan Dwivedi , resident of village Khagni, P.S. Gorea Kothi, District Siwan. 9. Upendra Kumar, son of Sri Yogendra Singh, resident of village Chitauli, P.S. Gorea Kothi, District Siwan. 10. Kapildeo Prasad Yadav, son of Sri Singhashan Yadav, resident of Village and P.O. Nabiganj, P.S. Bashantpur, District Siwan. 11. Vijay Kumar Prasad, son of Sri Bhagwan Prasad, resident of Village.P.O. and P.S. Raghunathpur, District Siwan. 12. Murari Rai, son of late Jaleshwar Rai, resident of village Nikhati Khurd, P.O. and P.S. Raghunathpur, District Siwan. 13. Paras Nath Prasad, son of Sri Gangdev Prasad, resident of village and P.O. and P.S. Gorea Kothi, District Siwan. 14. Kialash Yadav, son of Sri Ranjeet Yadav, resident of village Jangalvilash, P.S. Tarwara, District Siwan. 15. Harishankar Prasad, son of Sri Nagina Prasad, resident of village Karhi, Shampur, P.S. Bashantpur, District Siwan. ………………...Petitioners- Opposite Parties. ------ For the Petitioners : M/s Uday Chandra Prasad and Binod Kumar Sinha. For the State : Mr. Ramdhar Tiwari, Advocate. ----- 04/ 25.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. 2. This petition has been filed on behalf of the Siwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and its Managing Director for review of order dated 19.05.2005, by which C.W.J.C. No. 10513 of 1996 was - 2 - disposed of with a direction to the said Bank ( which was respondent no.8 in the writ petition) to give effect to order dated 19.12.1989 (Annexure 1) of the Registrar as well as recommendation dated 01.10.1992 (Annexure 3) of the establishment committee as early as possible preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order upon the respondent-Bank. 3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by private respondents no. 7 to 15 for bringing the services of the writ petitioners under the Cadre Fund at par with other similarly situated persons in terms of the approval granted by the Registrar, Co-operative vide his letter dated 19.12.1989 as well as the recommendation of the establishment committee dated 13.05.1992 and to pay them regular salary and other emoluments permissible thereon from the due date to which they are entitled in law. Although the said writ petition was filed by the writ petitioners on 04.10.1996 and the Siwan Central Co- operative Bank Ltd., who was respondent no.8 in the writ petition also appeared, but no counter affidavit was filed on its behalf and hence by order dated 18.02.1998 this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Managing Director of the Siwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. to give effect to the said order dated 19.12.1989 as well as the said recommendation dated 13.05.1992 as early as possible preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 4. Against the said order, the Siwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. ( respondent no.8 to the writ petition) filed L.P.A. No. 548 - 3 - of 1998, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.01.2005 holding that since opportunity was not granted to the appellants to file a counter-affidavit, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the matter was remitted to the learned Single Judge to consider the same afresh and the appellant- Bank was directed to file a counter affidavit in the writ petition within a period of three weeks. 5. Thereafter, the said Siwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. filed its counter affidavit on 14.02.2005 and the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 10513 of 1996 was reheard and was disposed of by learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2005 with a direction to the said Bank to give effect to the said order of the Registrar dated 19.12.1989 as well as recommendation dated 01.10.1992 of the establishment committee as early as possible preferably within two months from the date of service of a copy of the said order upon the Bank. 6. Against the said order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 19.05.2005, the Siwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. filed L.P.A. No. 1339 of 2005 but when the case was heard on 24.01.2007 learned counsel for the appellants after some argument sought permission to withdraw the said letters patent appeal for enabling it to file a review petition and, accordingly, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the instant review petition has been filed on 23.03.2007 after about two months. 7. The claim of the review petitioner, namely, Siwan Central - 4 - Co-operative Bank Ltd. is that in the order under review dated 19.05.2005 reliance was placed on the order of the Registrar dated 19.12.1989, namely Annexure 1 to the writ petition without appreciating that the said order had been withdrawn by the Registrar vide order dated 05.03.2003 ( Annexure `A’ series to the counter affidavit). It may be interesting to note in this regard that Annexure 1 of the writ petition is the order of approval dated 19.12.1989 granted by the Registrar, Co-operative, on the basis of which the writ petitioners claimed for a direction to place their services under the Cadre Fund, whereas, Annexure 3 was the recommendation of the establishment committee dated 13.05.1992. 8. Hence, on the basis of the said specific order and recommendation, C.W.J.C. No. 10513 of 1996 was filed on 04.10.1996 and was disposed of by order dated 18.02.1998, but by then the said order dated 19.12.1989 or recommendation dated 13.05.1992 (Annexures 1 and 3 ) were not withdrawn and had to be given effect to as per the specific direction of this Court given in order dated 18.02.1998. Thereafter, in the year 1998 the Siwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and its Managing Director filed L.P.A. No. 548 of 1998 without raising any such point and only five years after the filing of the letters patent appeal an order dated 05.03.2003 (Annexure A) was sought to be passed by the Registrar withdrawing the earlier order dated 19.12.1989 (Annexure 1). However, the said L.P.A. No. 548 of 1998 was allowed and the matter was remitted to the learned Single Judge to consider it afresh with liberty to the said - 5 - Bank to file a counter affidavit in the writ petition. 9. It is also interesting to note that the order of the Registrar dated 19.12.1989 (Annexure 1) was not withdrawn prior to the filing of C.W.J.C. No.10513 of 1996 nor it was withdrawn before the disposal of the said writ petition on 18.02.1998 and only after 14 years the Registrar passed his order dated 05.03.2003 (Annexure A series) withdrawing the earlier order of the Registrar dated 19.12.1989 (Annexure 1). In these circumstances, it is quite apparent that the subsequent order of the Registrar dated 05.03.2003(Annexure 1) was a perverse order passed due to clear mala fide only with a view to circumvent the specific order of this Court dated 18.02.1998 and hence no reliance could be validly placed on it. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances the said order of the Registrar dated 05.03.2003 (Annexure A) having been passed during the pendency of the letters patent appeal, no reliance was placed thereon even by the division bench in the said appeal as will be apparent from the order dated 25.01.2005, by which L.P.A. No. 548 of 1998 was decided. Furthermore the learned Single Judge while considering the claim of both the parties including the counter affidavit of the Bank and deciding the writ petition, namely C.W.J.C. No. 10543 of 1996 on 19.05.2005 rightly did not rely upon the subsequent order of the Registrar dated 05.03.2003 (Annexure A series) and did not find any error in the earlier order dated 18.02.1998 passed in the writ case on the basis of Annexures 1 and 3. 11. In the said order dated 19.05.2005, which is under - 6 - review, the Court has specifically found that in the counter affidavit filed by the Siwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., it has been stated that Annexure 1 was issued on the basis of yet another decision of the Government as has been referred to in Annexure 1 and the said decision of the Government has been withdrawn and hence the fact remains that Annexure 1 can survive even without that decision of the Government, which is said to have been withdrawn. It was also found in the said order under review that on the basis of Annexure 1 some of the writ petitioners have been permitted by the State Government itself to switch over to the Government on the basis of the decision of the Government that PACS Managers, who were drawing salary from the Cadre Fund, are entitled to be appointed in the Government upon clearing appropriate eligibility tests. It was further held that there was no reason why the Bank, which is an employer, would stand in the way of the writ petitioners drawing their salaries from a fund which may be managed by the employer but does not belong to the employer and hence the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the said Bank to give effect to the order dated 19.12.1989 of the Registrar as well as the recommendation dated 01.10.1992 of the establishment committee as early as possible preferably within two months from the date of service of a copy of the said order upon the Bank. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record nor does it find discovery of any new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the - 7 - knowledge of the review petitioners due to which it could not be produced by them nor does this Court find any other sufficient reason to review the impugned order and, accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. 13. It has to be noted here that by order dated 19.05.2005, this Court had specifically directed the review-petitioner, namely Bank, to give effect to order dated 19.12.1989 and recommendation dated 01.10.1992 as early as possible preferably within two months from the date of service of a copy of the said order upon the Bank. The Bank having filed L.P.A. No.1339 of 2005 against the said order had full knowledge and information about the said order, but it transpires that it has not complied the said order of this Court dated 19.05.2005 although no order of stay was passed either in the aforesaid letters patent appeal or in the instant review petition. The law is well-settled in this regard that mere filing of an appeal or a review petition does not operate as a stay of the order under challenge and the said order has to be complied in its letter and spirit unless there is any order of stay from the appellate Court or from the review Court. However, since question of review is a limited question, this Court is not going into the question of violation of the said specific order of this Court amounting to contempt, but the writ petitioners, who are opposite parties no. 7 to 15 in the instant review petition, will be at liberty to pursue any remedy in that regard in accordance with law. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. ) - 8 -