The Registrar's interference in cooperative bank pay revisions is unjustified, as the authority of pay scales rests with the Managing Committee, consistent with cooperative principles and constitutional directives.

JUDGMENT :

DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

First petitioner, in both writ petitions, is the Association of Employees of the Bank, and other petitioners happen to be its members. They are grieving before the Writ Court against the orders dated 10.08.2021 & 29.06.2021 passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Odisha whereby their representations have been rejected. In the said representations, the petitioners, who are since retired, had requested in effect for the extension of revision of pay scales pursuant to 6th Pay Commission Recommendation w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and 7th Pay Commission Recommendation w.e.f. 01.01.2016.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that right to form cooperative society itself being a fundamental right by virtue of Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 w.e.f. 08.02.2012, the interference of the State Authorities in the administration of the Cooperative Society is unjustified; even otherwise according to him, there being rules promulgated under section 33-A(2) of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, the Registrar could not have been arrogated himself the power in the absence of non-satisfaction of the criteria mentioned in the Rules.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were earlier before this Court in W.P.(C) No.32883 of 2020 seeking the benefit of 6th Pay Revision and a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 17.12.2020, directed for considering the subject representation of petitioners dated 24.10.2019. Similarly, the petitioners were before this Court in W.P.(C) No.33124 of 2020 seeking the benefit of 7th Pay Revision and the said petition was disposed off on 16.1.2020 directing the opposite party no.2 therein to treat the writ petition as representation and take a lawful decision in the matter. The representations have been wrongly considered and thus, there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.4- Bank submits that his client, as a matter of policy, had extended the revision of subject pay scales with the respective dates, regard being had to the profit making during the relevant period. However, the Registrar having not agreed to the proposal, the impugned orders are made by him. Learned AGA Mr.Lenka appearing for the answering official Opposite Parties opposes the petitioner contending that the pay revision is one of the service conditions of the Cooperative Bank and therefore, supervisory powers do avail to the Registrar in the best interest of very society itself, which deals with the public money. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the petitions.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:-

5.1. The service conditions of the employees of the Cooperative Bank are regulated by Rule-26 of the Central Cooperative Bank Staff Service Rules, 2011 that are promulgated by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under section 33-A(2) of 1962 Act. Rule 26 said Rules reads as under:-

“26. Pay Scales The pay scales of each category of employees shall be decided by the Managing Committee of bank from time to time subject to the following terms and conditions:-

a) The Cost of Management shall in no case exceed 60% of the total income and 2% of the Working Fund.

b) The CRAR as on 31st March of preceding 3 years should be as per the rate prescribed by RBI/NABARD from time to time, but in no case the level of CRAR should be less than 7%.

c) The Bank should be working on net profit for the last 3 consecutive years.”

The text of the above rule shows that the essential power of prescribing the pay scale and granting pay revision belongs to domain of Managing Committee of the Bank itself, subject to riders mentioned in Clauses a, b & c. Of course, the first proviso to Rule 26 gives some leverage for the interference of C