JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—When this case was taken up today for consideration, learned Counsel for the parties were not variance on the following facts. 2. That the petitioner is a Co-operative Society under the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the Rules framed thereunder. Respondent No. 3 is its member. He has raised different loans from time to time from the petitioner. He was initially repaying this loan amount/interest in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,800/-. This amount was to be recovered by respondents No. 1 and 2 being his employers as enjoined upon them under Section 46 of the Act. 3. Amount of monthly deduction was enhanced from Rs. 1,800/- to Rs. 4,000/-. This action of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No. 3, firstly by way of Civil Suit No. 102/1 of 2003, before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 4, Shimla. Finally this suit was dismissed under Order IX Rule 8 CPC, when no one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3 in the trial Court. 4. Thereafter petitioner filed O.A. No. 1510 of 2004 before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal. By way of interim order, it was ordered that monthly instalment shall be recovered at the rate of Rs. 1,800/- till further orders. Finally vide order dated 30.12.2004, it was held that since the petitioner was holding a civil post in the Government, as such matter fell within the zone consideration of the Tribunal under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Resultantly, application of the petitioner for vacating the order passed in OA No. 1510 of 2004 was disallowed. 5. Another fact that needs to be noted here is, that admittedly the petitioner-Society has invoked the provisions under the Act against respondent No. 3, and the matter is being prosecuted by the parties under it before the appropriate authority. At the time of hearing of this writ petition, Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 stated at the Bar that against the award, his client has preferred an appeal wherein there is stay operative in favour of his client and against the petitioner. 6. In the aforesaid background, Shri Dhaulta learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to have entertained the O.A. as the matter did not fall under any of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 6. In the aforesaid background, Shri Dhaulta learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to have entertained the O.A. as the matter did not fall under any of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Per him, there was no dispute in relation to service matter between respondent No. 3 on one side and respondents 1 and 2 on the other and also between petitioner and respondent No. 3. He pointed out that respondent No. 3 is admittedly a member of the petitioner-Co-operative-Society under the Act. Respondent No. 3 has availed loan from the Society. As such, dispute if any, though he hastened to add there is none, between his client and respondent No. 3 for all purposes is to be governed by the Act, Rules framed thereunder, as well as Bye-laws of the petitioner-Society. Therefore, the Tribunal fell into error firstly in entertaining the appeal, and then initially passing the interim order followed by the dismissal of his clients application, by holding that it had the jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the matter. 7. This plea of the petitioner was contested and resisted by Shri Thakur on behalf of respondent No. 3. As according to him, his client is not at all aggrieved from the order of the petitioner. His challenge was against the authority of respondents No. 1 and 2 who had started deducting increased amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month instead of Rs. 1,800/- per month. Thus according to him, it was purely a service matter, therefore, no exception can be taken either to the entertainment of the O.A. by the Tribunal or its authority to have passed interim order in it and subsequently dismissing the application of the petitioner vide its order dated 30.12.2004. 8. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having examined the record of this case, as well as for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, in our considered view the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to have entertained the O.A. what to talk of having passed either the interim or the impugned order. 9. In the face of above admitted position, the rights and liabilities of the parties regarding admitted loans availed by respondent No. 3 from the petitioner-Society are governed by the Act, Rules framed thereunder, and the Bye-laws of the petitioner-Society. 9. In the face of above admitted position, the rights and liabilities of the parties regarding admitted loans availed by respondent No. 3 from the petitioner-Society are governed by the Act, Rules framed thereunder, and the Bye-laws of the petitioner-Society. In addition to this, award having been passed and appeal having been preferred against it, was another admitted fact on behalf of respondent No. 3. How the dispute between the parties was a service matter within the meaning of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, could not be explained on behalf of respondent No. 3, though learned Counsel urged with vehemence that his client is aggrieved by the action of respondents No. 1 and 2, who had increased the deduction from Rs. 1,800/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month. This plea has been raised simply to be rejected, because these respondents were discharging their statutory function under Section 46 of the Act, that too not of their own but at the instance of the parties, petitioner-Society and respondent No. 3. In case the argument urged on behalf of respondent No. 3 that he is aggrieved from the action of respondents No. 1 and 2 is taken to its logical end, it will lead to absurdity. 10. In this view of the matter, there is no dispute whatsoever muchless a service dispute between respondent No. 3 on one side and respondents No. 1 and 2, on the other. Merely because respondent No. 3 was holding a civil post will not confer jurisdiction upon the Tribunal so as to have entertained the O. A., as has been observed in the impugned order, in respect of the disputes which are governed by the provisions of the Act. It is not a case of reduction of pay or any other dispute concerning pay between respondent No. 3 and respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 has disputed his liability qua the petitioner. 11. Faced with this situation, Shri Thakur submitted that his client who is working as Sewadar in the office of Minister of Tourism to the Government of H.R in H.R Secretariat, Shimla, will be put to grave hardship if the petitioner-Society is allowed to get Rs. 4,000/- deducted from his monthly salary towards repayment of the loan, and the interest accruing thereon. 4,000/- deducted from his monthly salary towards repayment of the loan, and the interest accruing thereon. This will lead to starvation of his family as it will not be possible for them to survive on meager sum that is left out. In these circumstances, he prayed for a direction to the petitioner to reduce monthly deduction from Rs. 4,000/- to the amount that was already being deducted i.e. Rs. 1,800/- per month or such other amount as may be deemed proper by this Court. We say nothing in this behalf save and except that let respondent No. 3 approach the petitioner-Society for this purpose. In case such a prayer is made, it will be examined by the petitioner-Society dispassionately taking into account an over-all view of his monthly resources, and this prayer of respondent No. 3 shall be dealt with by the petitioner without being prejudiced either by its earlier decision to insist on monthly deduction of Rs. 4,000/- or anything said in this judgment which is meant purely for the limited purpose of disposal of this writ petition. 12. Shri Thakur also submitted on behalf of respondent No. 3 that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to have entertained the claim of his client, anything said in this judgment may not prejudice his clients claim in appeal that is pending under the provisions of the Act. 13. No other point is urged. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms:— (a) That the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to have entertained the O.A. No. 1510 of 2004 filed by respondent No. 3; (b) Resultantly, while dismissing O.A. No. 1510 of 2004 filed by respondent No. 3, both the aforesaid orders are quashed and set aside; (c) Anything said in this order will not prejudice the case of either of the parties that was stated to be pending before the authorities under the Act, as this order is meant for the limited purpose of disposal of this writ petition and we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case; and (d) In case respondent No. 3 approaches the petitioner-Society for reducing monthly deduction from Rs. 4,000/- to a reasonable sum per month, his such prayer shall be examined by the petitioner taking an over all view of the whole matter including his resources out of which he has to survive as also to clear the liability of the petitioner-Society. It is however left to the sole discretion of the petitioner to fix the amount of monthly deduction, subject of course to rights and contentions of the parties in proceedings pending before authorities under the Act. 15. This writ petition was finally heard at the joint request of learned Counsel for the parties after it was formally admitted looking to the limited question involved in it. No order as to costs. CMP No. 188 of 2005 16. No order in view of the disposal of the main matter. Application stands disposed of. Writ petition allowed.