4 r 83 1 e 1 47 INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CN No17181 of2010 DATEOF DECISION 24a 08 Il HinduCooperative Bank Employees Association 0 etitioner Versus 0 Stateof Punjaband others e 2espondents 0 O BEFORE HONBLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY I 0 Presentlv Mrs G Mann Advocate for the petitioner Z Mr G Attariwala Addl G Punjab C Mr DN Sharma SeniorAdvocate with MsAamta Rani Advocate I for respondents N4 and 5 Z CO e DAYA CHAUDHARY J Il ewo Z The presentpetitionhas been filed for quashingof Ietterdated Qm 26201 0 vide which the claim for release of Dearness Allowance to the has been declined and also for issuingdirectionsto the respondentsto release the Dearness Allowance to the petitioner Association The petitioneris an Association of employeesof Hindu Bank and the grievanceof the in the presentpetitionis that the membersof the Association have not been paid Dearness Allowance for the Iast two years whereas theyare entitled for the same at par withthe employeesof PunjabGovernment C Mrs G Mann Iearnedcounsel for the Parkash Om 2014.05.24 15: 37 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 84 No 171810f2010 21 submitsthat the services of the membersof the are by PunjabUrban CooperativeBank Service Rules 2001 and they are entitled for Dearness Allowance which has wronglybeen declined They have made various and subsequently a Iegalnotice was also sent for the said relief but the same has not been grantedLearned counsel further submits that Dearness Allowance has 1 been grantedto the employeesof State of Punjabbut the same has not Q been grantedto the whereas theyare also entitled 0 0 for the same beingat par with those employeesThe has been incorporated and registered under the PunjabCooperativeSocieties 0 Act and the affairs of the Bank are controlled and supervisedby the Registrar Societies and Since theyare peiforming a public Z dutyand as such it falls within the meaningof Statelother authorities as definedunder Section 12 of the Constitutionof India Learned counsel for the petitionerhas also relied upon thejudgment of this Court in CNVP No Z 19224of 2006 titled as The Hindu Urban CooperativeBank Limited Vs The State Information Commission and others to support her f10 contention SW Z Reply on behalf of respondentsNol to 3 has alreadybeen ll filed and the same is on record Learned counsel for the respondenttatesubmits that Since the pe880neris an Association of Hindu CooperativeBank employees therefore State has no role and no relief has been sougtitagainstthe State RepIyon behalf of respondentsNo and 5 has also been filed which is on record 11 Mr DV SharmaIearned senior counsel for respondentsNo 1 and 5 has raised a preliminaryobjectionwith regardto of the writ petitionas the Bank is not an authoritywithin the meaningof Parkash Om 2014.05.24 15: 37 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 85 No 17181 of2010 31 Section12 of the Constitution of India The is a Society registeredunder the provisionsof the Punjab Societies Act 1961 and the Government has no pervasive controlover the affairsof the Bank Learned counsel funher submitsthat in Vlew of the judgmentof Honble the ApexCourt in the case of SS Rana Vs RegistrarCooperativeSocieties and another JT 2006 51SC 186 1 writpetitionis maintainableagainstthe CooperativeSocietyas it is not 0 no Statewithinthe meaningof Article 12 of the Constitutionof India It has a 0 0 also been submittedby Iearnedcounsel for No 4 and 5 that I 0 some of the empioyeesof Tarn Taran CooperativeSugarMills Ltd Tarn I Taran filed a writ petitionbefore this Court for claimingpaymentdue to 4 them which was dismissed on 272006 by relyingupon the judgmentof Z Honblethe Apex Court in SS Ranas case ipral as well as General tr ManagerKisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd Sultanpur UP Vs Nishad and others JT 2003 81SC 235 He also submits Z that state of Punjabhas been impleadedas party beingno role The presentpetitionhas been filed for quashingof the Ietterdated 2262010 10 writtenbythe ManagingDirector of the Bank to the DeputyRegistrarand 7 Z has onlybeen impugnedjustto Ole the presentpetition Even on merits the pay scales of the employeesof the Societyare to be determinedbythe Boardof Directors and for that an approvalof the Registraris required The employeesare governedby RuIe 11 as well as Section 84B of the Act which cleariyshows that the pay scales and Dearness Allowance cannot be more than the employees of the State Government The Ietterisr disputeis not applicableto the employeesof the Bank unless it is adopted bythe Board of Directors Learned counsel also relied the judgmentsof 1 this Court in CN No 2486 of 1987decided on 3A2008 titled as Pardip Kaur and others V The Jalandhar Central Cool Bank Lttl etc 1 CNV P No 8056 of 1991 decided on 8 7 2011 titled as Miss Pardeep 1 Parkash Om 2014.05.24 15: 37 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 86 C VV No 17181 of2010 41 Kaur and others Vs State of Punjaband others C VV P No 2595 of 1991decided on 52007 titled as BhajanSinghand others Vs The State of Punjab and others and in the case of RanjitSinghVs The RegistrarCooperativeSocities PunjabChandigarhand another 2010 41SCT 750 and in CNP No 3366 of 1994 decided on 842011 titledas AmarjeetSinghV ChandigarhState CooperativeBank Limited and W others C Heard the argumentsadvanced by Iearned counsei for the 0 0 pattiesand have also gone throughthe impugnedIetteras well as other I documentsavailable on the Ole C I Now the questionfor consideration before this Coun is whetherthe writ petitionis maintainableor not Z Without commentinganythingon the merits of the case it IS held that the writ petitionis not maintainable in view of the judgmentsof Honble the Apex Court in Kisan Sahkari Chini Millss case 1supraland Z SS Ranas case 1supralas well as judgment of this Court in CNVP No 4795 of 2003 Jatinder SinghVs State of Punjabetc decided on CO 5 2005 and CNV P No 16584 of 2033 SarabjeetSinghand others Vs 7 Z State of Punjaband othersldecided on 11 5 2006 tl in view of the above the presentpetitionis dismissed However the IS at Iibertyto avail an alternativeremedyavailable under Iaw 1 DAYA CHAUDHARYI pooJa JUDGE Parkash Om 2014.05.24 15: 37 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document