JUDGMENT DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.-The present petition has been filed for quashing of letter dated 22.6.2010 vide which the claim for release of Dearness Allowance to the petitioner-Association has been declined and also for issuing directions to the respondents to release the Dearness Allowance to the petitioner-Association. 2. The petitioner is an Association of employees of Hindu Cooperative Bank and the grievance of the petitioner-Association in the present petition is that the members of the Association have not been paid Dearness Allowance for the last two years, whereas, they are entitled for the same at par with the employees of Punjab Government. 3. Mrs. G.K. Mann, learned counsel for the petitioner-Association submits that the services of the members of the petitioner-Association are governed by Punjab Urban Cooperative Bank Service Rules, 2001 and they are entitled for Dearness Allowance, which has wrongly been declined. They have made various representations and subsequently a legal notice was also sent for the said relief but the same has not been granted. Learned counsel further submits that Dearness Allowance has been granted to the employees of State of Punjab but the same has not been granted to the petitioner-Association, whereas, they are also entitled for the same being at par with those employees. The respondent-Bank has been incorporated and registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act and the affairs of the Bank are controlled and supervised by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and since they are performing a public duty and as such it falls within the meaning of State/other authorities as defined under Section 12 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 19224 of 2006 titled as The Hindu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. The State Information Commission and others to support her contention. 4. Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has already been filed and the same is on record. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that since the petitioner is an Association of Hindu Cooperative Bank employees, therefore, State has no role and no relief has been sought against the State. 6. Reply on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5 has also been filed, which is on record. 7. Mr. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that since the petitioner is an Association of Hindu Cooperative Bank employees, therefore, State has no role and no relief has been sought against the State. 6. Reply on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5 has also been filed, which is on record. 7. Mr. DV Sharma, learned senior counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition as the Bank is not an authority within the meaning of Section 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondent-Bank is a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and the Government has no pervasive control over the affairs of the Bank. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of S.S. Rana Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and another, JT 2006 (5) SC 186, no writ petition is maintainable against the Cooperative Society as it is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 that some of the employees of Tarn Taran Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Tarn Taran filed a writ petition before this Court for claiming payment due to them, which was dismissed on 20.7.2006 by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in S.S. Rana's case (supra) as well as General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Nishad and others, JT 2003 (8) SC 235. He also submits that state of Punjab has been impleaded as party, being no role. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the letter dated 22.6.2010 written by the Managing Director of the Bank to the Deputy Registrar and has only been impugned just to file the present petition. Even on merits, the pay scales of the employees of the Society are to be determined by the Board of Directors and for that an approval of the Registrar is required. The employees are governed by Rule 11 as well as Section 84-B of the Act, which clearly shows that the pay scales and Dearness Allowance cannot be more than the employees of the State Government. The employees are governed by Rule 11 as well as Section 84-B of the Act, which clearly shows that the pay scales and Dearness Allowance cannot be more than the employees of the State Government. The letter in dispute is not applicable to the employees of the Bank unless it is adopted by the Board of Directors. Learned counsel also relied the judgments of this Court in C.W.P. No. 2486 of 1987 decided on 3.4.2008 titled as Pardip Kaur and others Vs. The Jalandhar Central Coop. Bank Ltd. etc., C.W.P. No. 8056 of 1991 decided on 8.7.2011 titled as Miss Pardeep Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, C.W.P. No. 2595 of 1991 decided on 5.9.2007 titled as Bhajan Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab and others and in the case of Ranjit Singh Vs. The Registrar Cooperative Socities, Punjab, Chandigarh and another 2010 (4) SCT 750 and in C.W.P. No. 3366 of 1994 decided on 8.4.2011 titled as Amarjeet Singh Vs. Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank Limited and others. 8. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned letter as well as other documents available on the file. Now the question for consideration before this Court is whether the writ petition is maintainable or not. 10. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, it is held that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills's case (supra) and S.S. Rana's case (supra) as well as judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 4795 of 2003 (Jatinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab etc.) decided on 2.5.2005 and C.W.P. No. 16584 of 2033 (Sarabjeet Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others) decided on 11.5.2006. 11. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. 12. However, the petitioner-Association is at liberty to avail an alternative remedy available under law. Petition dismissed.