IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.479 of 2011 SHEO PRAKASH MANDAL, SON OF LATE KAKOI MANDAL, R/O TAHWALPUR, P.S.-LODHIPUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. …..PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR PATNA. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, BHAGALPUR CENTRAL CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD., BHAGALPUR. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE BHAGALPUR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. RED CROSS ROAD, ADAMPUR, BHAGALPUR. 5. THE MANAGER (ACCOUNTS) BHAGALPUR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. RED CROSS ROAD, ADAMPUR, BHAGALPUR. …..RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03. 30.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner is an employee In-charge record keeper of the respondent-bank. He filed the present writ petition seeking the following relief:- “That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction, directing the Respondents to revise the pay scale i.e. Rs. 4250/- of petitioner at par with his junior, Mithlesh Kumar Jaiswal was granted and paid on 26.05.2010 by the M.D. of the Bhagalpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bhagalpur and accordingly arrears be paid”. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-bank. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank raises 2 two issues. It is contended that the respondent-bank is not an instrumentality of the Government and therefore not ‘state’ within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution of India. Secondly, it is submitted that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy provided under Section 48 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act 1935. He relies on a judgment of this Court since reported in 2004 PLJR 179 (Bihar Co-operative Bank Employees Union Versus Ranchi-Khuti Central Co- operative Bank Ltd.). Learned counsel for the petitioner takes a stand that the respondent-bank is an instrumentality of the Government. It is next contended that petitioner may not have efficacious remedy in terms of section 48 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act 1935 and as such this Court may entertain the application and pass/issue appropriate direction(s). Since the matter can be disposed of on the issue of alternative remedy, this court refrains from pronouncing its view on the objection of the respondents that the respondent-bank is not state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court. It is well settled that if the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy then this court would not invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. In the case reported in 2004 PLJR 179 (Bihar Co-operative Bank Employees Union Versus Ranchi-Khuti Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.) this Court dealt with similar objection and held as under in para 25 which is 3 extracted hereinbelow:- “Therefore, under section 48 of the said Act, a dispute regarding „disciplinary action‟ taken by the Society or its managing committee against a paid servant of the society is one which, even though touches the business of the society, has been expressly excluded by the statue. Therefore, applying the principle of “expression unius exclusio alterius”, this court holds that all other disputes touching the business or affairs of the society must be construed to be included within the ambit of section 48 of the said Act. Since the Full Bench has given the word “business” a wide construction so as to include within it, the affairs of the society, this court holds that the dispute relating to reduction of house rent allowance is one which touches the business and affairs of the society. As the same has not been expressly excluded, it is included within the ambit of section 48 of the said Act and the petitioner must exhaust the remedy provided under section 48 before coming to this Court”. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that petitioner has an efficacious remedy in terms of Section 48 of the Act where the issue can be raised/referred. Let the petitioner 4 approach the said authority under the Act whereafter the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously. The application stands disposed of. Devendra/ ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)