RAM MURTI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, 111 in number, who (except petitioner No. 1)are employed as "shayak-cum-Vikreta" of the various Sewa Sahkari Samities, functioning under the control of the respondent No. 3, have sought by these proceediogs under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the quashing of the order, dated 28-3-85 (Annexure VIII), passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby the salary of the petitioners have been sought to be reduced from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 250/- or Rs. 200/ -. ( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 Antarsingh is employed as a Sahayak Saniti Sewak with the Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhatyan Bujurg. Distt. Khargone, at a monthly salary of Rs. 678. 05 inclusive of all allowances such as D. A. , A. D. A. , H. R. A. etc. The respondent No. 3, by its order dated 16-9-82, had tried to reduce the monthly salary of the petitioner No. 1 to Rs. 300/- only, but the respondent No. 2, by its order dated 25-5-84, vide Annexure III, rejected the said order and the original salary of the petitioner No. 1 (at Rs. 678. 05 p. m.) was restored. ( 3 ) THE petitioners No. 2 to 111 were appointed as Sahayak-cum-Vikrcta at the fixed monthly salary of Rs. 300/ -. These appointments (vide Annexure III)were made by the respondent No. 3 on the basis of selection done by a selection committee. They were also required to furnish a solvent security of Ri. 500/-each and it was provided that Rs. 10/- P. M. shall be deducted as security deposit from their salary. The respondent No. 3, by the impugned order, \nnexure viii, has sought to reduce the salary of all the petitioners from Rs. 300/- p. m. to rs. 250/- or Rs. 200/- p. m. on the basis of the turn-over of the concerned Sewa sahakari Samiti, and also declaring them as temporary and part-time employees. It is this Annexure VIII which is under challenge here. ( 4 ) THE various Sewa Sabakari Samities in the District of West Nimar are affiliated to, and are controlled by, the respondent No. 3, under the general supervision of the respondent No. 1 under Section 55 (1) of the M. P. Co-operative societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the 'act'), the respondent No. 1 has framed rules governing the service condition1! of the employees of the Central Co-operative banks in Madhya Pradesh, in 1982, (hereinafter called the "relevant Rules"), which came into force from 1-7-82. The petitioners had come with the case thai they are employees of the respondent No, 3, which was stoutly opposed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Now, it was conceded that they are the employees of the various Sewa Sahakari Samities. It is also common ground that respondent no. 1 can issue appropriate directives and orders affecting the service conditions of the employees of the Sewa Sahakari Samities under the relevant Rules under section 55 (1) of the Act. ( 5 ) THE respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have sought to defend the impugned annexure VIII on the ground that the pay of the petitioners was wrongly fixed at rs. 300/- p. m. and by the impugned annexure that mistake has been corrected and it has been done ia accordance with the pay-scales applicable to the petitioners under Schedule C of the relevant Rules. ( 6 ) WE have gone through the pay-scales applicable to the Samiti Sewaks, given in the Schedule C of the relevant Rules. These are in 3 categories A, B and C. Category A carries the pay-scale of Rs. 170-330. The pay-scale of category B is Rs. 150 270 and that of Category C is Rs. 140-240. To repeat, these are the only pay-scales which are applicable to the Samiti Sewaks. The relevant Rules do not confer any power on the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to reduce the salary of the petitioners in the manner ia which it has been done by the impugned Anaexure VIII. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was unable to show to the Court as to under what specific power or rule the impugned Anoexure VIII had been passed. The basis on which the salary of the petitioners has been sought to be reduced, is also wholly arbitrary and imaginary. The proposed reduced salary of the employees has been corelated to the volume of the business, i. e. the turn-over, of the various Sewa Sahakari Samities. ft has absolutely no legal bais. There is also no legal justification for declaring the petitioners as part-time workers. The proposed reduced salary of the employees has been corelated to the volume of the business, i. e. the turn-over, of the various Sewa Sahakari Samities. ft has absolutely no legal bais. There is also no legal justification for declaring the petitioners as part-time workers. The impugned Annexure VIII is thus not only bad because it lacks any legal basis, it is also bad in law because it seeks to change the service conditions of the petitioners unilaterally. Therefore, it deserves to be stuck down and set aside. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 28-3-85, Annexure VIII, passed by the respondent No. 3, is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.