[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Nayagarh District Central vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 15 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24951 of 2021
&
W.P.(C) No.24996 of 2021
In the matter of applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
----
Nayagarh District Central .... Petitioners
Cooperative Bank Limited,
Workers Union (AOCCBEF,
Nayagarh Unit, Nayagarh,
represented by its General
Secretary-Sri Nilamadhab Rath &
Others (In both W.Ps.)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
(In both W.Ps)
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Petitioners - Mr. S.Roy,
Advocate in both W.Ps.
For Opp. Parties - Mr.D.N. Lenka,
AGA for O.Ps.1 to 3 in both W.Ps.
Mr.Anurag Pati,
Advocate for O.P.4 in both W.Ps.
---
CORAM
MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 15.12.2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER 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 Cooperative
Authorities only in the specified circumstances therein.
Admittedly, the Bank which was undergoing losses earlier came
to good financial position later and therefore, the policy decision
was taken by the Managing Committee to extend the benefit of 6th
& 7th Pay Commission respectively with effect from 01.01.2006
and 01.01.2016. When the Bank's financial position was decent,
there was absolutely no justification whatsoever for the Registrar
of Cooperative Society to intervene in the matter, as rightly
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5.3. There is force in the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners that right to form a Cooperative Society will lose its
pith & substance, if right to manage affairs of such society is
unjustifiably curtailed by the departmental authorities. It is the
Managing Committee, which knows what pay scale should be
given and when pay revision should be extended to its
employees; of course this is subject to regulatory provisions
promulgated in Rule 26, which has been already reproduced.
When the Bank was earning profits, sharing a part of that with
the employees is consistent with the Directive Principles of State
Policy enacted in Article 43 of the Constitution as broadly
interpreted by the Apex Court in of Jalan Trading Co. (P) Limited
v. Mill Mazdoor Union, AIR 1962 SC 691.
In the above circumstances, these petitions succeed; a Writ of
Certiorari issues quashing the impugned orders dated 10.08.2021
& 29.06.2021 passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Odisha. A Writ of Mandamus issues to the Opposite Party-Bank to
sanction and grant the benefit of 6th Pay Revision and 7th Pay
Revision to the petitioners respectively with effect from 01.01.2006
& 01.01.2016 within a period of three months. In the peculiar
circumstances of the case, no interest nor cost is awarded.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all
concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 15th Day of December, 2025/Basu
Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL.
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 19-Dec-2025 17:27:40
