Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Bihar Rajya Sahakarita Prabandhak Sangh, Sitamarhi, Sheohar through its Secretary who claims to be a Manager of Primary Agriculture Credit Society (hereinafter referred to as PACS). Prayer made in this application is to quash the order dated 28.12.1993 contained in Annexure-1 whereby the State Government has, in exercise of its statutory power under section 66B of Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has prescribed a new method for payment of salary to the Manager of the PACS by opening of specified account in every central co- operative branch to which the particular PACS may be attached. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that such a provision amounts to altering the conditions of service of Managers of PACS because by such an arrangement the Managers will be reduced to employee of a particular society only whereas presently they belong to a district cadre and further the payment of salary to the Managers will be dislocated because earlier they were getting salary from a State cadre fund created through the bye-laws of Bihar State Cadre Cooperative Society Limited and placed under the management of such society. The said cadre fund, besides contribution from other sources also received donation from the State Government and in the estimate of the petitioner this ensured timely payment of salary to the petitioner but now from the conditions of impugned order contained in Annexure-1, it is not clear whether the State Government would be contributing to the account opened for payment of salary to the Manager of individual PACS. 3. The stand of the respondent State, according to counter affidavit, is that by Annexure-1 no interference has been made with the service conditions of the petitioner i.e. Managers of PACS and only a different procedure has been provided for payment of their salary on various considerations such as the Managers should be primarily paid out of profits of the PACS and Managers should be interested in improving the functioning of the PACS for their own benefit. In view of clear stands of the respondents in the counter affidavit that no service condition of the petitioner has been altered and only the manner of funding for payment of salary to the Managers of PACS has been changed by way of new policy decision with a view to improve the functioning of the PACS, the objection of the petitioner to Annexure-1 does not survive. The pay scale of the petitioner as well as their cadre etc. remained unchanged and from the counter affidavit, it further appears that for payment of salary to the Managers, even after issuance of Annexure-1 the State Government has been sanctioning substantial amounts by way of subsidy. In such circumstances, on facts alone it is found that the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 causes no prejudice to the petitioner and the respondent-State admits that the service conditions of the petitioner remained unchanged. In such circumstances, it is not necessary to go into other question of law that have been raised in course of arguments. Apparently Annexure-1 is within the powers available to the State Government under the provisions of section 66B of the Act and in such circumstances, no interference is called for with the policy decision contained in Annexure-1. 4. This writ application was filed in December 1997 and there is an averment in the writ petition that the petitioner and other members of petitioners association have not been paid their salary since October 1996 only because of confusion created by Annexure-1. In view of stand taken by the respondent in their counter affidavit, it is just and proper to remind the respondents that salary of the petitioner must be paid to them in accordance with their service conditions and in accordance with law without unnecessary dislocation or delay. The co-operative sector in this State has already been disreputed and if the Manager of PACS are expected to work sincerely towards improving the functioning of the PACS then it is all the more essential that their salary should be paid regularly. 5. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of with a direction that the concerned authorities shall ensure that the dues of petitioners salary are paid to them within a period of three months from the date of production/communications of a copy of this order before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, respondent no. 2. 5. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of with a direction that the concerned authorities shall ensure that the dues of petitioners salary are paid to them within a period of three months from the date of production/communications of a copy of this order before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, respondent no. 2. They should also ensure that the salary of the petitioner is not dislocated and paid regularly and for this purpose, if further policy decisions are required to be taken, the same should be taken expeditiously. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.