ORDER
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. Thus, the. State of Jharkhand has pleaded its inability to offer any help.
6. The respondent No. 4, who is incidentally the Deputy Development Commissioner, and the respondent No. 5, the Administrator, filed counter-affidavit. It was admitted by them that the Bank’s financial condition is very precarious. It was also admitted by them that the Bank is not in a position to pay salary to its employees, though their conditions are pitiable. It is admitted that Rs. 8 crores had been distributed on account of loans amongst the people of Palamau, Garhwa and Latehar districts, which are still to be collected and the petitioners are not taking interest in realization of this loan amount. No elearcut answer has been given in this counter-affidavit whether the waiver of the loan advanced by the Bank was ordered by the State Government or not, rather all the blames have been thrown upon the employees that they are not collecting the loan amount.
7. In counter reply, the petitioner, filed certain replies in the form of Annexure-25/A to show that warrant of arrest had been issued in certificate proceedings against the loanees in an attempt to realize the loan amount.
8. The Chief Secretary was directed to file an affidavit as the Court thought it proper to ask the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand, to file an affidavit on this issue. That affidavit was filed on behalf of the Chief Secretary by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. It was stated in it that though the Deputy Development Commissioner, respondent No. 4, had demanded Rs. 10 crores, yet the Government of Jharkhand was not liable to pay and the rest part of the affidavit is based on the liquidation of the Bank in view of the Reserve Bank of India’s decision. The legality of appointment of the employees has also been challenged. Ultimately the liability has been denied. Thus, the attempt of the respondents is to prove that it was the act of the Bank and its employees, which has brought the bank to these precarious impasses and therefore, they are shirking the responsibility. But as stated above, none has come forward in open terms that the loans were not waived at the instructions of the Government.
9. This situation in which the Bank finds itself has also been contributed by the State as it waived the loan; therefore, it is not open to the State to say that it is not liable to redeem the Bank because it amounts to taking the advantage of its own wrong. Therefore, in the present situation, the State of Jharkhand is directed to make
provision by making allotments to the Bank so that at least the salary is paid to the Bank’s employees-petitioners; of course, the liability so incurred by the State of Jharkhand will be subject to the share of assets and liabilities under the Reorganization Act because it was the erstwhile State of Bihar, which had waived the loans. This allotment must be made within a period of two month from today.
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, this writ petition is disposed of.