IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3157 of 2002. Morija Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Morija, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur and Another VERSUS The State of Rajasthan & Others. Date Of Order ::: 05/03/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sharma, advocate, for Mr. Babu Lal Sharma, Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Ashish Jain, Dy. G.A., the respondents BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.07.1997 (annexure-7) passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur (Rural), order dated 21.10.1999 (annexure-11) passed by the Additional Registrar (First) Co-operative Societies, Jaipur and the order dated 10.12.2001 (annexure-12) passed by the State Government. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur (Rural) vide its impugned order dated 29.07.1997 (Annexure-7) passed an order against the petitioner no.2 Sanwar Mal Gurjar, Manager of the Society for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,235.62. The said order was challenged by the petitioner no.2 Sanwar Mal in an appeal under Section 124 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies vide its order dated 21.10.1999 (annexure-11). Thereafter, no revision or writ petition was filed by the petitioner no.2 Sanwar Lal, but the order of the Appellate Authority was challenged by the Society/petitioner no.1 before the Co-operative Minister, which also dismissed on 10.12.2001 (annexure-12). Being aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Society as well as the petitioner no.2 Sanwar Mal. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the payment of bonus was made to the petitioner, as per resolution of the Society and without cancelling the said resolution of the Society, no order could have been passed against him for the recovery of the said amount of bonus. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the disputed amount does not belong to the amount of bonus alone, but it also relates to wrong payment of the salary made to the petitioner. The petitioner was holding a post of Manager in the Society, whereas he was paid salary under the pay-scale of the post of Assistant Inspector for which he was not entitled. The said fact came in the notice, when the audit report came and on that basis the proceedings were initiated against him. The Registrar, Co-operative Society had passed an order dated 15.01.1994 (annexure-10) that the Manager of primary co-operative societies are not entitled for any bonus. So far as the payment of salary to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Inspector is concerned, the same was also wrongly paid to him. The orders were passed after notice and due opportunity to the petitioner. The matter has been examined by the Appellate as well as Revisional Authority in detail. He further submits that the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner no.2 is highly belated, as he did not prefer the writ petition after dismissal of his appeal on 21.10.1999, as no revision was preferred by him against the said order. So far as the petitioner no.1 Society is concerned, the writ petition on its behalf cannot be said to be maintainable, as no order was passed against the Society. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, as mentioned above and after considering the same, I find that the payment of bonus was wrongly made to the petitioner as it was made in violation of order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 15.01.1994 (annexure-10). Admittedly, the petitioner was holding a post of Manager, therefore, he was not entitled to get the pay-scale of the post of Assistant Inspector. The writ petition on behalf of the petitioner No.2 is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches and the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner no.1 is not maintainable, as no order has been passed against the Society by the Assistant Registrar. I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/