By the Court.— Heard Sri M.D. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner. 2. Sri H.P. Singh appears for the respondent Bank. 3. The petitioner served in the District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Varanasi as Section Officer/Branch Manager-Grade-II from 30.8.1979 till he was selected by direct recruitment on the post of Branch Manager, Class-I, and joined in the same Bank on 03.04.1987. He made a representation to the Principal Secretary of the Cadre Authority of Cooperative Bank, Centralized Services, Lucknow, praying for protection of his pay under Rule 24 of the Cooperative Centralized Service Rules. 4. In the latest representation made by the petitioner, it is stated that he was drawing total emoluments of Rs. 2425.44p including Rs. 272.00 as Pay and Rs. 2053.44p. as Dearness Allowance. After his direct appointment as Branch Manager, Class - I he was drawing total emoluments of Rs. 1955.00, which included Basic Pay of Rs. 1040.00 and Dearness Allowance of Rs. 915.22p. The petitioner claimed that there was a difference of Rs. 470.24p., which should be allowed to him for protecting his pay for previous ten years service rendered in the same bank. He also stated in his representation that he was eligible for promotion, and that two persons junior to him namely Jagannath Singh and Ram Autar Yadav were going to appear in the same interview for promotion, and as such he may also be permitted to appear in the same interview. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent bank submits that those who are promoted from lower rank were allowed pay protection, but those who were appointed by direct recruitment afresh on the post of Senior Manager were not allowed pay protection. 6. Sri M.D. Singh has relied upon the Government Order dated 3.9.1989 by which the State Government has clarified that in respect of all the Public Sector Undertakings/Corporations where the employee is appointed on higher post by way of direct recruitment, he will lose lien on the lower post, but that he will be entitled to count the period of service rendered in the same undertaking/corporation entitleling him for all retiral benefits such as gratuity, pension and the benefit of protection of pay. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the bank further submits that the petitioner after direct recruitment became employee of Centralized Services. He was no longer regulated by U.P. Cooperative Services Regulation, 1975. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the bank further submits that the petitioner after direct recruitment became employee of Centralized Services. He was no longer regulated by U.P. Cooperative Services Regulation, 1975. The Government Order dated 3rd September, 1989 was not applicable to the petitioner as he had became an employee of Centralized Services of the Bank. The bank is neither a Public Sector Undertaking nor Corporation to attract the Government Order dated 3rd September, 1989. He further submits that it was open to the petitioner to either choose to compete for promotion through direct recruitment under 25% direct recruitment quota or to compete in 75% promotional quota. Since the petitioner, competed in the 25% of the direct recruitment quota, he cannot claim the benefit of past service in the Bank. The petitioner’s representation was considered and rejected by the Bank. 8. The Government Order dated 3rd September, 1989 is not applicable to the centralized services in the Bank. The petitioner had a choice to either seek benefits of service, by way of promotion under the 75% promotional quota. He choose to compete for direct recruitment under 25% quota for which there was higher pay scale. 9. The pay protection given for past services in the same organization is the subject matter of policy of the State Government. In the case of Public Sector Undertakings and Corporations, the State Government had revised the policy. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. ————