J.R. CHOPRA, J.- By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Bhagwan Dass has sought the quashing of the Order Annexure- 7 dated 25.8.1989, whereby the petitioner was asked to pay back the consequential benefits which had been paid to him on 13.10.1987 and it has been held that he is not entitled to any retrospective arrears benefits of his promotion. 2. The case of the petitioner is that initially, he was appointed as Daftery in the respondent Bank (Railway Shramik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Bikaner) and was promoted on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the year 1982. Later, certain departmental enquiries were initiated against him and certain punishments were imposed on him. It is alleged that a post of Upper Division Clerk fell vacant on 12.12.1983 and so, the petitioner, being senior most L.D.C. entitled for promotion made a representation on 20.12.1983 for his promotion on the post of U.D.C. As no action was taken on his representation for a sufficient time, the petitioner approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bikaner but he too did not give any fruitful result to the petitioner. He than approached the joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Sec. 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act. During the pendency of those proceedings, the respondent Bank impressed upon the petitioner that if he withdraws his petition pending before the joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, than he will be given all benefits. However. the petitioner withdrew the proceedings pending before the joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the respondent Bank granted promotion to the petitioner with effect from 12.12.1983 vide its Order dated 28.9.1987 on the basis of the enquiry report of the Sub-Committee. The penalty imposed against the petitioner was set aside and he was paid all consequential benefits vide order Annexure-6. 3. However, on 25.8.1989, an order came to be passed by the respondent Bank whereby the petitioner was asked to pay back the consequential benefits which had been paid to him on 13.10.1987 and it has been held that the petitioner is only entitled to benefits of his promotion with effect from 28.9.1987. It is alleged that the order Annexure 7 dated 25.8.1989 was passed in pursuance of an audit objection raised by the Audit Party. The petitioner sought copy of the Audit report vide Annexures 8 and 9. It is alleged that the order Annexure 7 dated 25.8.1989 was passed in pursuance of an audit objection raised by the Audit Party. The petitioner sought copy of the Audit report vide Annexures 8 and 9. However, it is alleged that the respondent Bank has taken the stand that if the amount so paid to the petitioner is not deposited by the petitioner, then it will be deducted from his salary or it be recovered by coercive process. It is father alleged that in the past, the respondent Bank had granted promotion with retrospective effect to Shri Girdharilal, Padma Ram, Pramod Kumar and Kaushal Kumar Gupta etc. It was submitted that the work of Senior Supervisor was taken from the petitioner by the respondent Bank with effect from 12.12.1983 and the pay scale of Senior Supervisor was much higher than the pay scale of Upper Division Clerk and, therefore, no recovery can be ordered against the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, submitted that the order Annexure-7 is without jurisdiction as it has been passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing and without giving him any notice and so, it is liable to be quashed. The petitioner has submitted that he has been granted promotional benefits with retrospective effect, on the assurance of the respondent Bank on withdrawal of his proceedings pending before the Joint Registrar. Thus these retrospective promotional benefits were granted to him on the assurance given by the respondent Bank and therefore, the respondent Bank now cannot turn round and withdraw those benefits. 4. It was submitted that earlier, the respondent Bank was registered with the Registrar under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 but now, the Parliament has enacted the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and this new Act has come into force with effect from 16.9.1985. In pursuance of this New act of 1984, the respondent Bank has been registered. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for quashing the Order Annexure-7 and for restraining the respondent Benefits from his salary and has claimed damages worth Rs. 10,000/-. 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank. It was contended that it is a Railway Shramik Sahakari Bank, a co-operative society of the Railway employees, who are its subscribers. 10,000/-. 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank. It was contended that it is a Railway Shramik Sahakari Bank, a co-operative society of the Railway employees, who are its subscribers. This co-operative society does not fulfil the requirement of the State and is not covered even by the expression other authorities within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. In a similar writ petition, Division Bench of this Court has held that the respondent Bank is not a State or Other authority under Art. 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, the writ petition against the respondent -bank is not maintainable. A detailed reply has been given to all the allegations made by the petitioner and has been claimed that on the basis of the principle No work No Pay, the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages. 6. A rejoinder was also filed on behalf of the petitioner. A comparative table of the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act and the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 7. I have heard Mr. S.L. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D.S. Shishodia, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank. 8. Mr. D.S. Shishodia, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has raised a preliminary objection that the respondent Bank being a cooperative society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act is not a State or other authority under Art. 12 of the Constitution and. therefore, it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Heeralal vs. Railway Shramik Sahakari Bank (1). wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held: Having considered the provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965-SS. 8, 14,17,32,36,36, (1) (c), 44,45,63,65,68,70,118, 128, 131, 141, and 148 and the Rajasthan Cooperatives Societies Rules-Rule 41 and the Bye Laws 11,24,28,(4) and the tests laid down by the High Courts and the Supreme Court in various cases, it is held that the Bank is neither an instrumentality nor agency of the State nor it can be said to be an authority under the control of the Government as envisaged by Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. It was further held: "that even if the Society is a person or non-statutory body, but if it discharges statutory functions or performs statutory obligations or statutory powers conferred on them, then the writ petition is maintainable, otherwise not. It was also held that no statutory provisions, by law or regulation has been made by which power of superannuation was given. The age of superannuation has been fixed by the Board by its resolution, which cannot be said to be in the nature of bye-laws, rules and regulations. In this view of the matter, the writ was not maintainable against the Bank. 9. Mr. D.S. Shishodia, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has submitted that the aforesaid Division Bench decision in Heeralals case (supra) is binding on this court and therefore, this question cannot be re-agitated as it is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Keshoram and Co. V. Union of India (2), wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that once a point is finally decided by the Court, it becomes binding and cannot be re-opened on the ground that some arguments had not been raised or considered by the Court. It was further held that once the validity of provision or notification is upheld by the Court, all grounds must be presumed to have been considered by the Court and fresh litigation challenging validity of the same provision on some additional grounds would be barred by the principle of res judicata. 10. Mr. S.L. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Heeralals case (supra) has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court, while taking into consideration the provisions of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, on January 29, 1986 but before decision of that case, the Parliament has enacted the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 & the respondent-Bank was registered under the New Act i.e. Multi State Co-operative Societies Act 1984 and, therefore, the judgment in Heeralals case (supra) has been rendered without taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and so such a Judgment at best can be held to be per in curium. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Prahlad Singh V. State of Raj. & Ors. (3). 11. Mr. S.L. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner has next placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Tekraj Vasandi V. Union of India (4) wherein certain tests have been laid down by their lordships of the Supreme Court on the basis of their earlier decisions and it has been held that on the basis of these principles, the Co-operative Society is taken to be a State or other authority as defined in Art, 12 of the Constitution. I have gone through the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Tekraj Vasandis case (supra) and the decision of this Court in Heeralals case (supra). Now, I propose to decide the preliminary objection raised by Mr. D.S. Shishodia, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank. 12. In Heeralals case (supra), Mr. M. Mridul, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew attention of the Court to Ss. 8,14,17,32,36,36,(1) (c), 44, 45, 63, 65, 68, 70, 118, 128, 131, 141, and 148 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules and Bye-laws 11,24, and 28 (4) of the respondent Bank and submitted that the respondent Bank is a State. While referring to the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramanna V. LA. Authority of India, (5) which has been approved in Ajay Hasia V. Khalid Mujib (6) the Division Bench in Heeralals case summarised the relevant tests gathered from the decision in International Airport Authoritys case (supra) as follows: (1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the Corporation is held by Govt. it would go long way towards indicating that the Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government. (2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the Corporation being impregnated with governmental character. (3) It may also be a relevant factor ... Whether the Corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or State (4) Existence of deep and persuasive State control, may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State Agency or instrumentality. (3) It may also be a relevant factor ... Whether the Corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or State (4) Existence of deep and persuasive State control, may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State Agency or instrumentality. (5) If the function of the corporation of public importance and closely related to government functions, it would be a relevant factor in Classifying the Corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government. (6) Specifically, if a department of Govt. is transferred to a corporation it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government. The Division Bench further noticed the Full Bench decision of the P. & H. High Court in Pritam Singh Gill V. State of Punjab (7), the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Som Prakash V. Union of India (8) and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Kaplana Bishui V. State of W.B. (9) and came to the conclusion that before an institution or society can be categorised as an instrumentality or agency of the Government within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution, the control which is exercised by the Government on such an institution or a society, must be deep and pervasive State control. While dilating further on the expression deep and pervasive State control, the Division Bench further noticed Tekraj Vasandis case (10) where in it has been observed : The crucial factor in determining an authority is the control of the government over that particular body or institution. The question to be asked is whether the government control is deep and pervasive. Is there deeply pervasive presence of the government in the instrumentality be it a corporation or society or a statutory body. The existence of deep and pervasive state control may afford an indication that it is a state agency or instrumentality. (Ajay Hasia). If it is a projection of the Government, whether State or Central, it is an authority. To use the picturesque phrase of Ray CJ., "The Voice is that of the State and the Central Government and the hands are also of the state and Central Govts. (Sukhdev Singhs case). Whatever may be the mould in which it is cast the form of the instrumentality is immaterial. It is the substance that matters. To use the picturesque phrase of Ray CJ., "The Voice is that of the State and the Central Government and the hands are also of the state and Central Govts. (Sukhdev Singhs case). Whatever may be the mould in which it is cast the form of the instrumentality is immaterial. It is the substance that matters. Lift the veil and see who is standing behind. The shell may deceve Crack the shell and see what is inside it. The Judge has to take inward, not outward." and came to the conclusion that the respondent Bank does not have deep and pervasive state control and, therefore, it is not an instrumentality of the state. 13. Thus, the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 were noticed only for the purpose of deciding whether state control over the respondent Bank is deep and pervasive and the decision in Heeralals case. (supra) is very much based on the tests laid down by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramanna V. I.A. Authority of India (11) which has been approved in Ajay Hasia V. Khalid Mujib (12). It is true that in Heeralals case (supra) the learned counsel for the petitioner himself has taken the stand that the Bank is registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies act. The by-laws of the respondent Bank still provides that the respondent Bank is guided by the provisions of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966. Even after coming into the force of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, the bye-laws of the respondent Bank have not been changed and, therefore, this blanket submission of Mr. S.L. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the provisions of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, and the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 are not applicable to the respondent Bank cannot be sustained in its entirety. However, the submission of Mr. S.L.Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that after coming into the force of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, the respondent Bank has been registered under the new Act and a certificate has been issued to it under this Act has not been denied by Mr. However, the submission of Mr. S.L.Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that after coming into the force of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, the respondent Bank has been registered under the new Act and a certificate has been issued to it under this Act has not been denied by Mr. D.S. Shishodia, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank and, therefore, I deem it proper to consider whether the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 are in any way different from the provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and whether according to the provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, the state control over the respondent Bank is deep and pervasive. 14. In Heeralals case (supra), while considering the question whether the Sate control over the respondent Bank is deep and pervasive, certain provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act and the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules were pressed into service by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and I have tried to compare them With the equivalent sections of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and have found that Sec. 8 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies act, 1965 is almost equivalent to Ss. 6 and 7 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. Likewise, Sec. 9 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act is almost on the same lines on which Sec. 14 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act. has been enacted. Rather Sec. 17 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act is more powerful so far as the state control over the respondent Bank is concerned as compared to Ss. 13 and 14 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies act. S. 32 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act is almost equivalent to Sec. 47 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act. the contention of Mr. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no provisions equivalent to S. 47 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies act in the Raj. Cooperative Societies Act. Sec. 47 of the Multi state Cooperative Societies Act deals with central Govt.s power to give directions in the public interest. It is directory in nature. Such a general direction can be given under Sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act by the Govt. Cooperative Societies Act. Sec. 47 of the Multi state Cooperative Societies Act deals with central Govt.s power to give directions in the public interest. It is directory in nature. Such a general direction can be given under Sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act by the Govt. to encourage and promote the Cooperative movement in the state and to take such steps in this direction as may be necessary. S. 32 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act gives powers to the Registrar to rescind certain resolutions passed by the cooperative society and, therefore, Sec. 32 read with Sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act gives more powers to the Registrar under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act than what are available to the Registrar under S. 47 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act. S. 36 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act empowers the Registrar to remove the committee or its members whereas Sec. 40 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 authorises the Registrar only to remove the member and not the committee. S. 36 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 is equivalent to Sec. 48 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act. 1984. There is not equivalent of Sec. 44 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act in the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. Sec. 45 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act is also similar to Sec. 67 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act but so far as the State control is concerned, Sec. 45 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act is more powerful. Ss. 63,65,68, 118 and 131 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act are almost equivalent to Ss. 62, 64, 67,85, and 96 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act. S. 70 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act is also in peri-materia with the provisions of Sec. 69 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act but the Registrar, Cooperative Societies has been bestowed with more powers under s. 70 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies act, as compared to aforesaid s. 96 of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act. There is not equivalent of Sec. 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act in the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act. After careful comparison of the aforesaid provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act and the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act. There is not equivalent of Sec. 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act in the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act. After careful comparison of the aforesaid provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act and the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act. I am firmly of the view that the provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act are almost similar to the provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act. Rather, the provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies are more powerful so far as State control is concerned as compared to the provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act. While considering the aforesaid provision of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act in Heeralal case, the Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the respondent Bank cannot be categorised as a State or other authority within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution because State control over the respondent Bank is not deep and pervasive. In this view of the matter. I am firmly of the view that even according to the provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, the state control over the respondent Bank is not deep and pervasive and, therefore, the respondent bank cannot be categorised as a State or other authority under Article i2 of the Constitution. 15. Before parting with the case, I may state that even the petitioner has made Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur and the Auditor, Coopera tive Societies, Bikaner as parties to this writ petition under the misconception that the respondent Bank is governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act. Be that as it may, judge from any angle, in my opinion, the respondent bank cannot be held to be an instrumentality of the State and, therefore, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Shishodia the learned counsel for the respondent Bank the respondent Bank being a cooperative society is not a State or other authority under Art. 12 of the Constitution and, therefore it is not amenable to the writ petition, has to be sustained. 16. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition is not maintainable because the respondent Bank is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. 17. In the result, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. There will be no order as to costs.