Judgment A.K.Ganguly, J. 1. These batch of writ petitions were heard together as common questions are involved in all these cases. 2. The basic grievance of the petitioners in these batch of cases is over fixation of salary to them without dearness allowance and the contention of the petitioners in all these cases is that such grant of salary to them is violative of the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners are working as Managers in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (hereinafter called the said PACS). The contention of the petitioners is that such appointments were made pursuant to letters of appointment issued under the signature of the Member Secretary District Co-operative Societies. 4. The petitioners have pleaded that in the year 1974 the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter called the R.B.I.) at the request of the then Chief Minister of Bihar sent a study team to submit a report and recommendation on agricultural credit institution and to find out why the growth of Co-operative Agricultural Credit Institutions in the State of Bihar has been impeded. It is further pleaded that after a comprehensive study of the problems, the team of the R.B.I. officials submitted its report to the Government of Bihar with a recommendation to the Government to constitute a cadre of Managers for providing their services to the base-level organisation, namely, the PACS and also to Former Service Society (hereinafter called the FSS) and Jan Jatiya Sahyog Samiti (hereinafter called the J.J.S.S.). It is also pleaded that the Government of Bihar accepted the report submitted by the R.B.I. with respect to the PACS and keeping in view of recommendation of the R.B.I. and the report, a re-structuring programme was initiated and all the existing PACS were re-organized in the year 1977. As a result of this decision, the Government decided to establish a State cadre Co-operative Society for the management of the State level cadre fund in which contribution was to be made from all PACS in the State. 5. As a result of this decision, the Government decided to establish a State cadre Co-operative Society for the management of the State level cadre fund in which contribution was to be made from all PACS in the State. 5. It is also the case of the petitioners that the State Government created the post of Manager for base-level organisation, namely, PACS but unfortunately the State Government did not follow the recommendation for the regular pay-scale of the persons who are employed as Managers of the PACS and instead of doing that the Government of Bihar fixed a consolidated salary of Rs. 200.00 per months for the Managers of PACS. It has also been decided by the Government that in every PACS there should be a paid Manager and it was also decided that such appointment should be made after due selection and interview through its selection committee in which the Collector of the district was made Chairman with District Co-operative Officer along with District Welfare Officer as its Members. Thereafter by a letter dated 7th August, 1980, the scale of the Manager which was consolidated earlier as rupees two hundred per month was changed and the pay-scale was given but no dearness allowance was attached to the said scale of pay. Initially, the pay-scale which was fixed was Rs. 220-315 per month. Thereafter on representation, the respondent State by an order dated 31st May, 1989 ultimately allowed the revised pay-scale of Rs. 535-765 to the Manager of the PACS with effect from 1st April, 1989. Only Rs. 30.00 was given as Travelling Allowance. This was done by the Government of Bihar, Co-operative Department by its order dated 31st May, 1989. The recommendations of the 5th Pay Revision Committee were, however, not extended to the Managers of the PACS but when representation was made the stand of the State Government was that such Managers are not the State Government employees. Ultimately, the State-respondents issued another order No. 141 dated 18th January, 1994 by which the pay-scale of the Manager was again revised to Rs. 975-1,540 with effect from 1-1-1994 and the travelling allowance of the Manager was raised from Rs. 30/~ to Rs. SO/-. The said order was passed by the Co-operative Department of the State Government. The petitioners are, therefore, demanding as Manager of the PACS similar pay-scale of Class-Ill Government employees of the Central Cooperative Bank. 975-1,540 with effect from 1-1-1994 and the travelling allowance of the Manager was raised from Rs. 30/~ to Rs. SO/-. The said order was passed by the Co-operative Department of the State Government. The petitioners are, therefore, demanding as Manager of the PACS similar pay-scale of Class-Ill Government employees of the Central Cooperative Bank. The petitioners have pleaded that by not granting the petitioners the benefit of dearness allowance, even though the pay-scale has been fixed, the respondents authorities are not giving the treatment which is reasonable, just and fair and for no reason whatsoever they have been denied the benefit of dearness allowance. 6. In these groups of matters counter-affidavit has not been filed by the State-respondents separately in all these cases but in one of the cases counter-affidavit has been filed. In that case, namely, C.W.J.C, No. 12441 of 1996 the stand, which has been taken is that the Managers of the PACS are not the Government servant and further stand taken in paragraph 9 of the said counter-affidavit is that the salary of the Manager of PACS is paid by the District Cadre Co-operative Societies from the cadre fund and the said cadre fund has been created in each of the District Central Co-operative Banks. Therefore, the case of the respondents is that the said cadre fund is constituted out of the contributions made by the PACS and the Central Co-operative Banks from their margin of profit to the extent of 1.75% and 0.50% respectively from their recovery of the principal amount. The further stand of the respondents is that the PACS are handicapped due to the poor recovery position for which the Managers of the PACS are responsible. The contribution of PACS to the Cadre Fund is badly affected. It has further been stated that the emoluments of the Manager of the PACS have been fixed keeping in view the paying capacity of the District Cadre Co-operative Society and the resources available to cadre fund. The contribution of PACS to the Cadre Fund is badly affected. It has further been stated that the emoluments of the Manager of the PACS have been fixed keeping in view the paying capacity of the District Cadre Co-operative Society and the resources available to cadre fund. It has been further admitted that the revision of pay-scale of Manager of PACS was made by the Government since under Sec. 66-B of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act and under Rule 33 of the rules framed under the said Act the Government has such power in respect of the Co-operative Societies but because of that reason the Managers of the PACS do not automatically become the Government employees merely because their pay-scales are revised by the State Government under the Co-operative Societies Act. It has been repeatedly reiterated in the counter-affidavit that the Cadre Co-operative Funds are facing resources crunch for which the Managers are responsible and they cannot claim any other emoluments as a matter of right. 7. Considering the aforesaid rival contention, this Court finds that the Manager of PACS cannot be called the State Government employees. They are certainly employees of the Co-operative Society in question. But under Sec. 66-B of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the said Act), the State Government exercises substantial control over such society. It is obvious that under the provisions of Sec. 66-B of the said Act, the power is vested on the State Government to lay down a general policy with regard to the recruitment and other service conditions of the employees concerned. 8. However, learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sheo Shankar Prasad Sinha and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1987 PLJR page 270, in order to contend that the petitioners are not the State Government employees. Relying on paragraph 12 of the said decision learned, Counsel for the respondents submits that since the State Government is not. empowered to pass an order of termination of the services of the employees concerned, the Manager of PACS are not the Government employees. 9. Relying on paragraph 12 of the said decision learned, Counsel for the respondents submits that since the State Government is not. empowered to pass an order of termination of the services of the employees concerned, the Manager of PACS are not the Government employees. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has, however, contended relying on the very said judgment that under Sec. 66-B of the said Act which has been explained in paragraph 12 of the said judgment it is clear that the State Government has the authority to give direction for fixation of pay-scale and in the instant case the pay-scale of the petitioner has been fixed by the State Government. Pay-scale includes dear-ness allowance. Therefore, by fixing pay-scale without dearness allowance the State Government has virtually acted in derogation of guarantee of life which includes livelihood under Article 21 as also the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. Therefore, the question which crops up is whether the State Government can in exercise of its power under Sec. 66-B of the said Act fix scale for some of the employees of the Co-operative Societies without providing any dearness allowance in the said pay-scale. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are regular employees of PACS. 11. It is no doubt true that the State exercises pervasive control over such Co-operative Societies, and thus, the Co-operative Societies virtually act as an extended arm of the State. 12. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Cooperative Land Development Bank V/s. Chandrabhan Dubey -- , the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that Co-operative Societies are authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is controlled by the State Government and its service conditions are also controlled by the State Government. As such the apex Court held in that judgment that writ petition which was filed by the dismissed employee challenging his order of dismissal is maintainable. 13. Here of course, the question of maintainability of the writ petition is not urged by the learned Counsel for the respondents. As such the apex Court held in that judgment that writ petition which was filed by the dismissed employee challenging his order of dismissal is maintainable. 13. Here of course, the question of maintainability of the writ petition is not urged by the learned Counsel for the respondents. But, in the instant case, the Court takes notice of the aforesaid decision in the case of Chandrabhan Dubey (supra) for the purpose of coming to the finding that such Co-operative Societies are under the pervasive control of the State Government and the State Government virtually controls the service conditions of the Manager of the PACS and in the instant case, it is clear that the pay-scale in respect of which the petitioners are aggrieved have been fixed by the State Government. 14. The question which falls for consider, don is while fixing such pay-scale of regular employees whether the State Government can fix it in an unreasonable and arbitrary way completely disregarding the basic component or a pay-scale, namely, the dearness allowance. This Court is aware of the limited nature of Courts jurisdiction in matters relating to fixation of pay-scale. Pay-scales are obviously fixed on consideration of various factors. The Apex Court has repeatedly clarified when pay-scales are fixed by an expert body like Pay Commission, such recommendation of the Pay Commission should not be lightly interfered with by the Court unless such recommendation is per se discriminatory. In the instant case, the pay-scale of the petitioners have not been fixed by an expert body like the Pay Commission but it has been fixed by the State Government and in the course of the said fixation the pay-scale of the Managers of the PACS have been fixed without giving the petitioners any benefit of the dearness allowance. 15. It is well known that the concept of dearness allowance has been evolved in India in order to compensate the effect of price rise. In other words without increasing the wages which is done in other countries, the dearness allowance is paid to the employees to neutralise the rise in prices. If we look at the history of the said concept we would find that during the 1st World War there was a demand in different Industries all over India to ensure compensation or rising prices of commodities. If we look at the history of the said concept we would find that during the 1st World War there was a demand in different Industries all over India to ensure compensation or rising prices of commodities. One such demand led to the historical fast undertaken by the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, in securing for the workers of Ahmedabad some benefit for protecting their real wage in view of substantial rise in the price. This compensation is presently called as dearness allowance and initially, the same was called as "dear food allowance". Dearness allowance was thus primarily intended to be a temporary measure and was sought as a kind of protection to those who have no cushion at all in then-pay packet in the event of rise in price. In other words, such allowances were intended as a protection to the person whose salary is at subsistence level. But in view of the fact that price rise is a permanent feature the present system of granting dearness allowance has come to stay as a part of total wage structure. 16. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Killick Nixon Ltd. V/s. Killick & Allied Companies Employees Union, -- . While dealing with the question of dearness allowance, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Killick Nixon (supra) has referred to the observations of the Gajendragadkar Commission on Dearness Allowance which are set out below: D.A. was regarded as "applicable to those employees whose salaries are at the subsistence level or little above it...in order to enable them to face the increasing dearness of essential commodities". (See Gajendragadkar Commission on Dearness Allowance, May, 1967). 17. The learned Judges have also quoted from the National Commission on Labour (1969) while considering the concept of dearness allowance and observed as follows: We consider that payment of D.A. has to be viewed in broader context of wage policy, many elements of which have been discussed in the previous chapter, In a developing economy, where price stabilisation has proved ineffective, or the inflationary potential cannot be controlled, any arrangement for compensating for price rise will have its raison detre 18. Considering these principles in paragraph 9 of the judgment, the learned Judges have observed that "D.A. has, therefore, come to stay". 19. Considering these principles in paragraph 9 of the judgment, the learned Judges have observed that "D.A. has, therefore, come to stay". 19. While laying down several principles, the learned Judges have made the following conclusive remarks in paragraph 36 of the said judgment: We have formulated the various principles which must be taken into account by the Tribunal in determining this question but the most dominant of these must always be that of social justice, for that is the ideal which we have resolved to achieve when we framed our Constitution. (underlined for emphasis) 20. Those observations, however, have been made in the context of industrial adjudication but what is true of industrial adjudication is also true in the case of pay fixation by the State Government on the basis of representation made by the Union of the petitioners inasmuch as in such fixation also the bargaining power of the employees have come into operation. 21. It cannot be disputed by any body that the pay which has been fixed for the Managers of PACS is at the subsistence level and those employees are also exposed to the vagaries of the market where he resides and he is also to keep pace with spiralling price rise and has to make out a livelihood. Since life includes livelihood and the source of livelihood is the pay which the petitioners get, it cannot be denied that if no protection is given in the pay of the petitioners against rising price, then the pay-scale which is fixed totally denying the said protection has obviously been fixed in violation of the principles of both Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 22. The Hon ble Apex Court has said in the case of Randhir Singh V/s. Union of India -- , that previously the equality clause of the Constitution as other Articles of the Constitution guaranteeing the fundamental and other rights were invoked mostly by the privileged class. But, then the position has changed, with the underprivileged classes being conscious of their rights are knocking the doors of justice. But, then the position has changed, with the underprivileged classes being conscious of their rights are knocking the doors of justice. And in paragraph 8 of the said judgment, the learned Judges have held that these equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone and would be meaningless to the vast majority of the people if the equality clauses of the Constitution "are un-connected with the work, they do and the pay they get." In this context, the learned Judges further elaborated the concept of equality clauses in the following words which I quote below: Whether the special procedure prescribed by a Statute for trying alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular Governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether the takeover of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave the milions of people of this country untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may, be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them. 23. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this Court holds that with the question of pay fixation of regular employees of PACS by the State Government, the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution are inextricably linked up. 24. The main objection of the respondents seems to be lack of fund of the various PACS but the same cannot be a consideration for denying the petitioners a pay which is fair and reasonable. And the saul of the guarantee epitomised in Article 14 is fairness coupled with reason. 25. Now, it is an accepted fact that in matters of wage fixation and pay-scale dearness allowance is a prominent component. In Hindustan Lever Limited V/s. B.N. Dongre reported in 1995 L.I.C., page 1136, Justice Ahmadi (as His Lordship then was) speaking for a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court said that the concept of dearness allowance is the "second most important element in a workers wage plan next to the basic wage" (Page 1143 of the report). So a pay-scale without any amount by way of dearness allowance is virtually a truncated scale. So a pay-scale without any amount by way of dearness allowance is virtually a truncated scale. Now the pay-scale being the only source of livelihood of the petitioners they cannot be asked to accept such a truncated pay-scale only on the ground of so called financial crisis. 26. In this context, reference may be made to the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Imam Organization and Ors. V/s. Union of India and Ors. -- . While the Hon ble Supreme Court was moved by the Imams of various mosques for fixation of their pay by the Wakf Boards, an objection of similar nature was taken before the Supreme Court by such Boards about their poor financial position. But in that context, the Hon ble Judges of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe "Financial difficulties of the institution cannot be above the fundamental right of a citizen." The same observation is also applicable here. For the so-called financial difficulties of PACS, the petitioners cannot be subjected to a pay-scale which is unreasonable and it virtually does not permit the petitioners to enjoy the guarantee of life with all its basic amenities and bare necessities. As "life under Article 21 as the apex Court has said, includes all the finer graces of human existence, the pay given to an employee totally bereft of dearness allowance does not permit the recipient to enjoy even the bare necessities of life fearless to talk of its finer graces. This Court, therefore, takes note of this ground realities in holding that the pay-scale fixed by the State Government in respect of the petitioners who are Managers of different PACS undermines the guarantee of both Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 27. The other objection which is raised is that the petitioners are not the State Government employees. Assuming that the petitioners are not the State Government employees but the petitioners are to exposed to the vagaries of the same market condition to which the State Government employees are also exposed. The petitioners are virtually doing State functions and the co-operative Societies are also discharging important State functions and are virtually acting as an extended arm of the State. Taking all these facts into account, the mere technical objection that the petitioners are not the State Government employees does not find favour with this Court. The petitioners are virtually doing State functions and the co-operative Societies are also discharging important State functions and are virtually acting as an extended arm of the State. Taking all these facts into account, the mere technical objection that the petitioners are not the State Government employees does not find favour with this Court. The petitioners are nevertheless the citizens of Indian as the State Government employees and has the same right as the State Government employees in the matter of pay which is meant to ensure a decent life. 28. This Court would not have normally interfered if the dispute had been for a claim to a different pay-scale than the one which has been fixed by an expert body like the Pay Commission, In the matters of fixation of pay-scale the expertise of such bodies like Pay Commission is always to be treated by Court with the deference and care. But in the instant case, the position is different. Here, the pay-scale of regular employees has been fixed by the State Government and the scale is bereft of any dearness allowance. As such, as noted earlier, it is virtually half of a pay-scale and the only justification for not granting dearness allowance is the financial crisis. In view of these facts, this Court finds that such fixation of pay-scale by the respondents State which as a welfare State is wedded to the principle of social justice, is wholly unreasonable and unfair and is also, therefore, unconstitutional. 29. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court directs that the pay of the petitioners should include dearness allowance which is given to the State Government employees in respect of the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1,540. Since the financial crisis has been pleaded this Court directs that such dear-ness allowance will be made available to the petitioners only with effect from 1st January, 1999 onwards and the arrears on account of such dear-ness allowance should be made available to the petitioners within, a period of four months from today and for the current months onwards their pay must include dearness allowance at the rate mentioned above and on that basis they should be paid their salary on a month-to-month basis. 30. These writ petitions thus succeed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.