LAWS(PAT)-2006-12-2

SHAIL DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On December 04, 2006
SHAIL DEVI Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Heard Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the authorities of the District Central Co-oparative Bank, Hajipur, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Additional Advocate General No. III, for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to make payment of salary due to her late husband from 1.4.1999 to 6.8.2003.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabandhak Sangh and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1999 (3) PLJR 110 in which this Court had directed that the pay of the petitioners (Paid Managers) should include dearness allowance which is given to the State Government employees in respect of pay scale of Rs. 975-1540. The petitioner also relies upon the observations of this Court that the Co-operative. Societies virtually act as an extended arm of the State. The petitioner further relies upon another decision of this Court in the case of Awadh Kishore Sharma v. Shri Chandra Mohan Jha, Agriculture Production Commissioner and Ors. 1995 (2) PLJR 632 in which certain observations are made in para 30 that the employer must pay living wages to the employees. He also relies upon a statement made in para-13 of the counter affidavit of the State in which it is stated that the State has no role in deciding the matter but directions are being issued to the Managing Director-cum-Member Secretary to do the needful. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that it is the duty of the Managing Director to pay the salary due to the petitioner's husband. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further relies, upon Section 66B of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 stating that by the said provisions complete control and supervision of the State Government has been provided over the Co-operative Societies and thus it is a liability of the State to make payment of salary of the petitioner's husband.