IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10260 of 2005 1. RAM PRAMOD THAKUR son of Sri Ram Kishore Thakur, resident of Village- Majhaura, Police Station- Bahera District-Darbhanga at present posted as an Adminsitrative officer of Darbhanga Central Co- operative Bank, Laheriasarai. 2. Padmesh Chandra Jha son of Late Babua Lal Jha Resident of Jay Prakash Chauk, Laxmisagar Colony, Police Station-L.N. Mithila University, District- Darbhanga 3. Amar Chandra Mishra son of Late Bishnu Kant Mishra, resident of Mohalla R.S. Tank Lahersarai Police Station- Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga 4. Devi Nath Jha son of Late Durga Nath Jha, resident of Village-Nav Toli, Police Station-Sarisabpahi, District- Madhubani. 5. Bhagirath Jha son of Late Jagdish Jha, resident of Village Bishaul Police Station- Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga 6. Radha Mohan Mishra son of Late Subh Kant Mishra resident of village-Mahinar, Police Station-Bahera, District-Darbhanga. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary Co- operative Department. 2. The Secretary Co-operative Societies, Co-operative Department Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna 3. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Co-operative Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna 4. The District Magistrate-cum-Liquidator, Darbhanga Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Laheriasarai, Darbhanga. ----------- 5. 15.09.2010 I.A. No. 7654 of 2010 has been filed for substitution of legal heirs since petitioner no. 2 has passed away on 10.8.2008. Mr. Sundeep Kumar Jha claims to be the only legal heir. The substitution petition is allowed. All these petitioners were employees of the erstwhile Darbhanga Central Co-operative Bank 2 Limited. They have worked in this Bank in various capacity but now the society has fallen in bad times and is under liquidation since it failed to comply with the R.B.I. guidelines issued in this regard. An official liquidator has already been appointed in this background and the Bank compelled to get rid of the services of its employees including the petitioners. This writ application has been filed by them seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay their salary since 2003, which is due as well as to accommodate them in some other organization or institution since it is a question of their livelihood. The contention of the learned counsel is that the obligation is conferred upon the Registrar Co- operative Society in this regard under the 1935 Act and they have a right to continue, looking at the long period of service they have rendered to the Bank. The minimum which the State can do is to take care of the rest of their career as they have no other place to go. It is also indicated that the Bank is not totally dead and in fact work is being taken from them on a contract basis without giving them regular salary of the post they held under the Bank. The stand of the State is that they have no role to play with regard to running of the affairs of 3 the Bank, as the Bank is an autonomous independent co-operative institution having its own managing committee and bye-laws duly approved by the Registrar of Co-operatives, as is required to be done under the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. But it cannot be said that merely because certain statutory powers are exercised by the Registrar Co-operative Society, the institution in any manner becomes limb up the State and all the liabilities of a defunct body becomes the responsibility of the State. There is no provision in the Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 to show that a co-operative body can be stated to be a limb up the State merely because it is regulated by an enactment of the State. The petitioners are employees of the co-operative body and if the co-operative body has gone into liquidation, by no stretch of imagination the State can be ordered to accorded any status under the State or yet another co-operative body. There is no mechanism for the Registrar Co-operative Society to order accommodation of employees of a body which is under liquidation. The fate of the petitioners will be dependent upon the fate of the body which they were 4 serving. If still survives or revives or comes out of the liquidation proceeding, petitioner may have a claim but there is no occasion for the Court to order payment of their salary at this stage or their engagement or accommodation in yet another body or institution. No case for interference is made out. Writ is dismissed. Anand Kr. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)