1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3317/1998 Rajasthan Sahakari Karamchari Sangh, Pali v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 6th April, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Rajesh Joshi for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Kapoor] Mr. I.S.Pareek ] for the respondents. .... The petitioner, a trade union having membership among Vyavasthapaks/Managers of the Primary Credit Cooperative Societies, has preferred this petition for writ to challenge the order dated 22.8.1998, passed by the Executive Officer, Pali Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Pali Marwar (hereinafter referred to as “the bank”) withdrawing benefit of jump given to the managers working with it in the pay scale of Rs.470-720 and of Rs.500-860. The respondent Bank under its order dated 25.4.1995 allowed the pay scale of Rs.470-720 to its managers Grade A and the pay scale of Rs.500-860 to its managers Grade B. In both the pay scales referred above a jump was given to the managers at the pay point of Rs.565 and Rs.680. In the pay scale of Rs.470-720 a jump from the pay point of Rs.565 to 2 Rs.610 was given. In the pay scale of Rs.500-860, such jump was available at the pay point of Rs.680 to Rs.740. By the order impugned dated 22.8.1998 the respondent bank withdrew the benefit of jump granted under the order dated 25.4.1995 on the count that as per letter of Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 27.11.1997, the managers working in the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies are having their own pay scales and in those pay scales no benefit of jump is given. The benefit of the jump was given in the pay scales applicable to the employees of the State Government but those are not applicable for the managers. While giving challenge to the order dated 22.8.1998, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under its letter dated 7.3.1988 communicated regarding an agreement arrived with the managers working with various Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies for maintaining parity with the employees of the State Government and as such the benefit of jump was rightly given. According to the respondents the agreement relied upon by the petitioner is having no relevance in present controversy. The agreement concerned relates to grant of dearness allowance to the managers and determination of pay accordingly. It is asserted 3 that the pay scales relating to managers are absolutely different and in the pay scales applicable no benefit of jump as given under order dated 25.4.1995 is available. Heard counsel for the parties. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan under a letter dated 7.3.1988 instructed to various Central Cooperative Banks regarding agreement arrived with the managers working in various Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies for grant of dearness allowance and determination of pay. The agreement aforesaid is quite transparent and it nowhere refers parity of pay of the managers with the State Government employees. It also nowhere mentions for adopting the pay scales applicable of the State Government employees for the managers. The agreement concerned, as a matter of fact, is relating to dearness allowance admissible to the managers working with different Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies and a parity is made only with regard to grant of dearness allowance. In the pay scales of Rs.470-720 and Rs.500-860 applicable for the managers, there is no benefit of jump, as such the order dated 25.4.1995 granting jump to the managers working with various Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies within the jurisdiction of Pali Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Pali Marwar was certainly 4 wrong. The respondent bank, therefore, by order impugned dated 22.8.1998 rightly withdrew the benefit of jump granted to the managers under the order dated 25.4.1995. Accordingly, this petition for writ is having no merit and, therefore, is dismissed. However, the respondents are restrained from effecting any recovery from pay of the managers to whom benefit of jump was given under the order dated 25.4.1995 for the amount paid in excess as there was no misrepresented demand on their part. Beside that, this Court also stayed operation and effect of the order dated 22.8.1998 on 9.10.1998 and the recovery is yet not effected. Cost made easy. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.