Tuesday, 12, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Rajasthan Sahakari Karmchari Sangh vs The State Of Rajasthan Through Its ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 1 Raj/2

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 2 January, 2024

Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan Sahakari Karmchari Sangh vs The State Of Rajasthan Through Its ... on 2 January, 2024

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Praveer Bhatnagar

  [2024:RJ-JP:220-DB]

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1098/2018

  Rajasthan Sahakari Karmchari Sangh, Jaipur Through Its Branch
  President, Bhilwara Jagdish Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Banshi Lal
  Sharma, Aged About 65 Years.
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
  1.       The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department
           Of Cooperative, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
  2.       The Registrar, Cooperative Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
  3.       The Central Cooperative Bank, Bhilwara Through Its
           Managing Director.
                                                                    ----Respondents
  For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. R.M. Jain
  For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG with
                                   Mr. Mananjay Singh Rathore
                                   Mr. Rahul Kamwar



HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Judgment

02/01/2024

1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 02.08.2018

passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition

claiming benefit of revised pay scale at par with the State

Government employees has been dismissed.

2. Though, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that

in view of various judicial pronouncements, the

Managers/Vyavasthpaks of Primary Credit Society are to be treated

as employees of the bank, we fail to understand how these

judgments come to the aid of the appellant in claiming the relief

sought in their writ petition.

[2024:RJ-JP:220-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-1098/2018]

3. In the writ petition following relief was sought by the

Association.

"i) declaring the action of the respondents in not revising the pay scales of the Manager/Vyavasthapak after the year 1983 as has been revised by the State Government in the years 1986, 1989 and 1998 to be illegal and unconstitutional and directing them to revise the pay scales of the Managers/Vyavasthapaks accordingly with all consequential benefits;

ii) declaring the orders dated 21.10.1997(Annx.4), 08.12.1997(Annx.5) and 13.10.1997 (Annx.6) to be illegal and unconstitutional and quashing and setting aside the same and directing respondent to pay the jumps benefit.

iii) declaring the action of the respondents in not giving the benefit of order dated 25.01.1992 to the members of the petitioner Union on completion of their 9, 18 & 27 years service, to be illegal and unconstitutional and directing them to allow these benefits to the members of the petitioner Union with all consequential benefits;"

4. The relief sought in writ petition unmistakably shows that the

appellant sought parity with the State Government employees in

the matter of revision of pay scale as well as the effective date of

revision of pay scales.

5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition mainly on

the basis that the petitioner has failed to place before this Court

any specific Rule or decision by which either the bank or the State

Government has taken any decision to grant revised pay scale to

the Managers posted in the Primary Credit Society at par with the

employees of the State Government. Taking note of the provisions

contained Rule 26-A of the Extent Rules, it has also been correctly

held by the learned Single Judge that the pay scales would be as

may be prescribed by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies.

6. The decisions which have been relied upon by the learned

counsel in the case of Rajasthan Sahakari Karmchari Sangh & Ors.

Vs. The Government Co-operative Department decided on

[2024:RJ-JP:220-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-1098/2018]

09.10.2018, Daluram Kumawat & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Anr. decided on 14.09.2018 and The Chairman, Chidabutter Village

Service Co-operative Socities Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

decided on 18.11.2017 are all decisions on the issue as to whether

a Manager/Vyavasthapak employed for the work of a Primary

Credit Society is to be treated as an employee of the Apex Society

i.e. Central Co-operative Bank or that of the Primary Credit Society.

In all these decisions it has been held that

Managers/Vyavasthapaks are employees of the Central Co-

operative Bank i.e. the Apex Co-operative Society and not the

Primary Credit Co-operative Society. Even if the aforesaid legal

position attains finality, the same does not help the appellant by

any stretch of imagination to claim parity with the State

Government employees in the matter of revision of pay scales

much less giving effect to revised pay scale from the same date.

Even the Rules do not make any provision. The employers being

different, the source of recruitment and the service being entirely

different, an employee of the Co-operative Bank cannot claim

parity within the employee of the State Government in the matter

of grant of pay scale and effective date of revision of pay scales.

7. In sum and substance, the relief sought by the appellant is

sans substratum. Neither policy decision nor circular, orders nor

Rules support the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned

Single Judge has not committed any illegality in dismissing the

petitioner's claim with regard to grant of higher pay scale/revised

pay scale that too with effect from the date on which it was

granted in favour of the State Government employees.

[2024:RJ-JP:220-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-1098/2018]

8. It needs to be noted that the members of the petitioner

Association have been granted higher pay scale/revised pay scale

during the pendency of the writ petition and the only issue which

remained to be decided before the learned Single Judge was

whether their claim for grant of revised pay scale with effect from

the same date from which it was granted to State Government

employees can be sustained. That argument was negated by

learned Single Judge on consideration which we have referred to

herein-above. We find that the claim of parity with the State

Government employees is not at all maintainable. Therefore, there

is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

9. Accordingly, the present special appeal (writ) is dismissed.

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

55-SURAJ KUMAR

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter