THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 15683 of 2000 Dated: 25-11-2010 Between: K.Radha Krishna and another …Petitioners and The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Cooperation Dept., Hyderabad and others …Respondents ORAL ORDER: Two Staff Assistants of the District Cooperative Central Bank seek a declaration herein that the action of the Bank in reducing their basis pay from Rs.3980/- to Rs.3580/- as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the bye-law 21(VII) of the bye-laws of the Bank and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners after entering into the service of the 3rd respondent-Bank as Contingent staff were regularised as Staff Assistant a post in Category V. They submitted a representation to the employer- Bank seeking weightage for their past service and for grant of additional increments. The Board of the 3rd respondent-Bank in a meeting dated 12-7-1999 agreed to sanction additional increments depending upon their length of service as contingent employees. As a consequence, bye-law 21 (VII) was amended. The petitioners were granted two increments each and their basic pay was modified to Rs.3980/- from the earlier Rs.3580/- by reckoning two increments with effect from 1-7-1999. However the Bank (the 3rd respondent) without notice and opportunity reduced the basic pay of the petitioners from Rs.3980/- to Rs.3580/- under an alleged U.O. note dated 26-6-2000. The petitioners learnt about this only when they went to receive the monthly salary of June, 2000. Claiming that the action is contrary to the amended bye-law 21 (VII) of the Bank bye-laws and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and also contrary to a circular Memo dated 24-4-1999 issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the writ petition is filed. The 3rd respondent-Bank has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the resolution of the Bank and the consequent amendment of the service regulations only sanction weightage increments and financial benefits to staff who are appointed to Category V from Paid Secretaries who worked in the Bank on contingent basis for longer period than 6 years, at the rate of one increment for every 3 years, of service subject to a maximum of 3 increments. The petitioners were not promoted as staff from the post of Paid Secretaries. Though the petitioners are not entitled to draw increments since July, 1999 even before the approval of the service regulations for sanction of weightage increments by the Deputy Registrar, they were erroneously granted the incremental benefits. When it was discovered that they were extended the incremental benefits erroneously, the same was withdrawn. The 3rd respondent Bank clearly and categorically denies the entitlement of the petitioners. The Memo dated 24-4-1999 issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies does not appear to be on the basis of any authority traceable to law. The Memo has been issued on the basis of representations made by the A.P. Cooperative Central Banks Employees Association and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has suggested that the respective District Cooperative Central Banks could amend their respective bye-laws to provide sanction of weightage increments and other financial benefits subject to the physical prudence limits enjoined under the provisions of the A.P.Co- operative Societies Act, 1964. Even the circular Memo dated 24-4- 1999 of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies merely states that the District Cooperative Central Bank of Eluru, Visakhapatnam, Kurnool and Ongole, where weightage increments were considered for their employees are expected to carryout the required amendments and provide the same in the special bye-laws governing the service regulations, otherwise such expenditure incurred by those Banks in granting weightage increments would amount to an irregular expenditure. Be that as it may. The petitioners have failed to establish that the 3rd respondent- Bank is a State or instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution warranting initiation of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. A learned Full Bench of this Court in Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. N.Seetharama Raju[1] has held that the District Cooperative Central Bank is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and that the bye-laws of such a body are not enforceable in a public law process. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is not maintainable nor are the petitioners entitled to any relief. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 25th November, 2010. GRR [1] AIR 1990 AP 171