Vikramaditya Prasad, J.

1. The point for determination in this writ petition is whether the members of the petitioner, who, are permanent employees of the Daltanganj Central Co- operative Bank Limited and are not being paid their salary right from April, 1998, are entitled to that and in case, they are entitled to that, who is responsible for making payment.

2. There is no dispute with regard to their entitlement because till April, 1998, payment of salary have been made to them. The problem arose because of the certain policies of the Government/Bank, by which the substantial loan given by the Bank was waived and consequently, the financial position of the Bank deteriorated so much that there remained no fund for payment of salaries. Such a matter was earlier in consideration in CWJC N6. 3446/1998 (R) before this Court and one of the learned Single Judges has given certain directions contained in paragraph No. 5 of the judgment rendered in this case. Pursuant to that directions, a decision was taken by the Managing Director and the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau-cum-Administrator, Central, Co-operative Bank Limited, Dal-tanganj. Clause 4 of the aforesaid decision reads as follows :--

"(4) Betan Bhugtan Ke Liye Rasi Ki Maang Ki Ja Rahi Hai. Sathi Hissa Punji Ki Rasi Badhane Ke Liye Rin Ke Rup Me Jharkhand Sarkar Se 10 Crore Rupaiya Ki Maang Ki Ja Rahi Hai."

Clause 3 of the aforesaid decision reads as follows :--

(3) Dinank 16.10.1998 Ko Avibhajit Billar Sarkar Ke Sachiv, Sahkarika Vibhag. Patna Ke Dwara Daltanganj Kendriya Sahakarita Bank Limited Ke Punarwas Ke Liye Apekshit Kararvai Ke Liye Jharkhand Sarkar Se Anurodh Kiya Giya."

Last but not least, in Clause 5 Of the aforesaid decision, the following decision was taken:--

"(5) Bank Ko Vibhdhinna Shrot Se Jo Rashi Prapt Hogi, Vibhagiya Niyamo, Prakriya/Anudesh Ke Anusar Betan Bhugtan Ki Kararvai Ki Jayegi. Kintu Kisi Bhi Halat Me Jatna Kdrtaon Ke Dwara Jama Ki Gdyee Rashi Se Betan Ka Bhuktan Nehi Kiya Ja Sakega."

3. From the aforesaid decision taken by the aforesaid authority of the Bank, it is clear that request has been made to the State of Jharkhand for rehabilitation of the Bank; Rs. 10 crores had been demanded from the State of Jharkhand as loan; besides for disbursement of the salary, allotment had been sought from the State. It is also the gist of that decision that from different sources, whatever amount is obtained, out of that, as per their rules and circulars, payment of salary shall be made. This decision was taken on 4.6.2000 and it was expected that the State of Jharkhand would make some provisions in accordance with the request made by the Managing Director and the Administrator of the Bank; which was a decision in compliance of the judicial order.

4. There is nobody to represent the Bank and it appears that the Bank through the then G.P. II had filed the counter- affidavit. It has not been clarified whether or not in pursuance of this decision, any help came from the Government. In that circumstances, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this decision was simply an eye-wash. This submission of the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner may not be entirely incorrect.

5. The respondent No. 1 to 3, the State of Jharkhand, the Secretary, Co- operative Deptt., and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, filed counter affidavit, stating therein that the Bank is governed by its own bye-laws and the Bank has been declared invalid for banking business by the Reserve Bank of India by refusing to give license to carry on banking business in India under Section 22 and 5(b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Bank lost its credit and credibility and is not capable even of returning the deposits of the depositors, who are the people and public of the State of Jharkhand and as such the bank is not in a position to be revived and the respondent State of Jharkhand is not at all responsible for the act done before this State was created. Th