JUDGMENT : Surinder Singh, J. The petitioner-Association is, The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank, Pensioners' Welfare Association a duly registered body. By way of present writ petition they prayed for the writ of certiorari against 3rd respondent in stopping the pension since March, 2010 to the members of their association verbally and without any written order, also seeks the quashment of the orders Annexure R3-7 and Annexure R3-8 and a mandamus to the respondents to allow the pension as usual to its members. 2. The petitioner association submitted that the respondent-Bank is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and in fact, is transacting Banking business. The Government holds more than 50% share in the Bank and the Managing Director of the Bank is from The Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services. The Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act and the rules framed thereunder show that the State Government has deep and pervasive control over the administration of the Bank, as such for all intents and purposes, Bank is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India. It is also contended that the members of the petitioner Association after their superannuation cease to be the employees of the Bank as such, are also entitled to maintain the present petition. Further as per notification issued under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security interest, 2002, Cooperative Banks like the 3rd respondent is covered under the definition of Bank. Therefore, entitled to maintain the writ. The retirees were getting pension under the scheme, which was stopped. 3. As a matter of fact, the third respondent in its meeting held on 2.8.1997 approved the contributory Pension Scheme (Annexure P-3) for its employees initially for a period of 5 years, which is reproduced verbatim as under:- "Contributory Pension Scheme For The Employees Of The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Dharamshala. 1. The scheme may be called the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank employees 'Welfare Fund & Contributory Pension' Scheme. 2. The scheme shall come into force w.e.f. 1.1.1998 on the proposed terms and conditions for a period of 5 years in the first instance. It shall be reconsidered thereafter every five years and based on the available Corpus balance and projected inflows and outflows in the succeeding 5 years, necessary, revision of employees contribution shall be made. 3. 2. The scheme shall come into force w.e.f. 1.1.1998 on the proposed terms and conditions for a period of 5 years in the first instance. It shall be reconsidered thereafter every five years and based on the available Corpus balance and projected inflows and outflows in the succeeding 5 years, necessary, revision of employees contribution shall be made. 3. The scheme shall apply to all the existing and retired employees of the bank who wish to become members of the scheme by giving their matching contribution to the corpus of the Fund. It shall automatically apply to all the employees to be appointed in future. 4. In order to begin with interest earned during the past ten years @5% of a sum of Rs. 50.00 lacs out of the 'Welfare Fund' shall be transferred to 'Pension Fund Corpus'. All the on roll employees of the bank will also start contributing @ 1% of their revised basic pay every month. This contribution will also be credited to 'Pension Fund Corpus'. All the retired employees of the bank who are also ready to contribute their share @ 1% of Pay + D.A. minimum for 10 years can also become members of the scheme. They have to contribute their share at the above rate with saving bank rate of interest. 5. The 'Pension Fund Corpus' shall be managed by the bank itself and shall earn a rate of interest fixed at 10% in future. 6. The employees of the bank shall be entitled for the pension on the Govt. formula out of the 'Pension Fund Corpus'. All the CCA (CCS) Pension rules of the Govt. Regarding calculation of pension etc. as at present applicable shall be applicable under this scheme. 7. The 'Pension Fund Corpus' will be given the credit on the average outstanding amount and at the rate of 10%. This way the fund will be self-sustaining. 8. The scheme will be self sustaining and if need arises at any stage, the employees contribution can be raised. No contribution is to be made by the Bank except the proposed contribution of interest on the initial fund allocation of Rs. 50.00 lacs. 9. The Board of Directors of the bank shall be competent to alter, amend or add to this scheme without previous notice wherever they think to do so with the prior approval of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh." 4. 50.00 lacs. 9. The Board of Directors of the bank shall be competent to alter, amend or add to this scheme without previous notice wherever they think to do so with the prior approval of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh." 4. The perusal of the aforesaid scheme shows that it came into force on 1.1.1998 in the first instance providing further that it would be reviewed after five years. As per the case of the petitioner, this scheme shall automatically apply to the employees appointed after its implementation, as such no one could opt out of the same. 5. Shri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners-Association argued that perusal of the scheme reveals that the Board of Directors (BOD) were not empowered to close the scheme, therefore, the third respondent could not have closed the scheme to their disadvantage retrospectively. It is also contended that the 4th respondent was formed by way of a Trust Deed Annexure P-4. The trustees are Chairman, Vice-Chairman, General Secretary and two staff representatives. CCS (Pension) Rules, provisions of the Income Tax Act and Indian Trust Act were made applicable to it. It is also argued that the persons who were in the service at the relevant time were required to contribute 10 years prior to the date in question i.e. from the year 1998 and the members of the Petitioners-Association having contributed accordingly in the fund @ 1-/2% basic pay along with interest, for which the members of the petitioner association were given options to which they accepted and made contribution as the scheme was framed after taking a conscious discussion for their benefits. The persons, who were superannuated were granted pension under the Bank's Employees Pension Scheme like one Annexure P-5 dated 24.6.2008, by which it was informed to one of the retiree Shri S.N. Shukla that after retirement from the bank services on 31.5.2008, he would get the pension under the Bank's Pension Scheme, showing his pension benefits with respect to the basic pension, interim relief and other allowances. Once it is granted, according to learned counsel for the petitioner-Association, it could not have been stopped to their disadvantage. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that as per Annexure P-6 obtained under the RTI Act, reflects the following position : Balance of Pension Fund Corpus (As on 9.3.2010) Rs. Once it is granted, according to learned counsel for the petitioner-Association, it could not have been stopped to their disadvantage. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that as per Annexure P-6 obtained under the RTI Act, reflects the following position : Balance of Pension Fund Corpus (As on 9.3.2010) Rs. 9,72,00,547.00 Contribution of Employees During the year (1.4.2009 to 28.2.2010) Rs. 67,35,049,00 Pension paid during the year (1.4.2009 to 28.2.2010) Rs. 1,63,85,601.00 Amount credits in the Fund (By Bank) Rs. 7,83,86, 705.00 Amount Credited in the Fund (By Interest) (1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010) Rs. 3,88,18,248.00 7. It is also argued that Rs. 20 crores welfare fund is also lying with the 3rd respondent and 3% PFC is given by AGM. Since the Scheme came into force w.e.f. 1.1.98, it applied retrospectively as aforesaid but said respondent did not make its revision after every 5 years as provided in the Scheme. Learned counsel also banked upon Section 31 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1971 to impress his point that the scheme aforesaid was approved by the General House and no other authority inferior to it can revoke it. 8. Thus, it is argued that final authority of a cooperative society vests in the general body of members in a general meeting and smaller body constituted as above (BOD) is only to facilitate the function of the society. Further that on 4.12.2009, in its 65th General House meeting, 3% allocation from the net profit was allocated from the net profit to the PFC every year, which made the pension scheme viable. Thus, stopping the scheme mid-way was wrong and illegal. 9. The petitioner association had also filed representations to the authorities concerned but no action was taken. It is also submitted that in case, the respondent Bank ought to have been reviewed the Scheme after five years and at the time of review could had made remedial steps but they did not bother to review the Scheme as per the spirit of the Scheme. The learned counsel referred to item No.44 (d) of bye-laws providing for disposal of net profits and Clause 67 (XIV) to establish and support or aid in establishment of funds calculated to benefit the employee of the Bank or dependants or relatives of such person and 81 (XI) which makes provision for starting any other fund with permission of Registrar. The learned counsel referred to item No.44 (d) of bye-laws providing for disposal of net profits and Clause 67 (XIV) to establish and support or aid in establishment of funds calculated to benefit the employee of the Bank or dependants or relatives of such person and 81 (XI) which makes provision for starting any other fund with permission of Registrar. Shri Ajay Sharma, petitioner's counsel further argued that the pension is not a bounty but is an earned benefit of an employee by serving the department/bank for such a long time and by making their contributions, cannot be throttled by the respondent in the manner aforesaid. Shri Sharma also argued that since the right to life is a fundamental right and by way of impugned arbitrary act on the part of the respondents, the right of the members petitioner association could not have been jeopardized. 10. Respondents No.1 and 2 at one hand and respondents No.3 and 4 at another filed separate replies. According to respondents, the scheme was self sustaining and if need arose at any stage, the employees contribution could be raised, but no contribution was required to be made by the bank except the proposed contribution of interest on an initial fund allocation of Rs. 50.00 lacs. It is also contended that the respondent-bank reviewed this pension scheme on 31st March, 2005 and sent a proposal to raise the employees contribution from 1% to 2% and to transfer the 50% of the yearly allocation of the employees welfare fund towards pension corpus fund, for their approval, but the replying respondent vide letter dated 4.7.2005 approved the proposal of the respondent bank to increase the employees contribution from 1% to 2% but rejected the proposal to transfer 50% of yearly allocation to employees welfare fund towards pension scheme and it was made clear at the time of approving the scheme that no contribution shall be made by the respondent-bank except as aforesaid i.e. Rs. 50 lacs. It was also their case that the respondent bank made several requests to transfer the employees welfare fund towards pension corpus, but it was rejected because it was specifically mentioned in the scheme that the pension would be given out of the 'Pension Fund Corpus' and respondent-bank shall not make any contribution thereto. 50 lacs. It was also their case that the respondent bank made several requests to transfer the employees welfare fund towards pension corpus, but it was rejected because it was specifically mentioned in the scheme that the pension would be given out of the 'Pension Fund Corpus' and respondent-bank shall not make any contribution thereto. This was also the case of the replying respondents that vide letter dated 6.4.2010, the bank furnished a detail of the latest fund position of the pension fund corpus and also the details/list of the retirees to whom the pension was to be paid from the scheme and the respondent-bank vide letter aforesaid referred above informed that the employees who were presently serving in the bank have contributed for the last 12 to 22 years and yet have long years of service have declined to contribute further, because by that time they retire, there would be nothing left in the corpus fund and they will not get pension and even the contributed amount, whereas the employees, who had contributed for lesser period would take maximum benefit and those contributing for a longer period would be deprived from the pension and their amount of contribution. The case of the respondents aforesaid has also been that they examined the matter in the light of the approved contributory pension scheme Annexure P-3 reproduced above and discussed with the Managing Director of the respondent-bank. It was observed that the bank was paying an amount of Rs. 15.00 lacs approximately per month as pension to its 200 retired employees, whereas inflow of the scheme was Rs. 6.00 lacs per month, creating a huge gap of Rs. 9.00 lacs per month. Since the scheme was self sustaining and bank had initially contributed a fund of Rs. 50.00 lacs to the scheme, without any further contribution, therefore, it became impracticable. Thus replying respondents advised the respondent-bank to consider the discontinuing or disbanding the scheme and to devise a better contributory pension fund scheme as there was mismatch between inflow and outflow which could not have been abridged. Even the respondent Bank was advised to examine the probability of outsourcing the pension scheme to some independent Insurance Company and also have a look at the new pension scheme prevalent in the State Government. 11. Even the respondent Bank was advised to examine the probability of outsourcing the pension scheme to some independent Insurance Company and also have a look at the new pension scheme prevalent in the State Government. 11. Respondents No.3 and 4 aforesaid in addition to the points taken by other respondents justified the stopping of the pension after March, 2010, when:- (i) The pension scheme had become self unsustainable; (ii) The available corpus balance in the Pension Fund Corpus had become insufficient to meet out the liability of retired employees for pension after 31.3.2010; (iii) The pension was payable keeping in view the inflow and outflow of fund but once a huge mismatch as aforesaid accrued between the inflow and outflow, as the inflow on account of employees contribution was Rs. 6,49,525/- per month but the outflow on account of pension liability was Rs. 15, 20,515/- per month as on 31.3.2010; (iv) The insufficiency in corpus fund arose on account of the orders passed by the respondent No.2 (Registrar, Cooperative Societies) on 31.10.2008 (Annexure R-3/2) letter addressed by him to the Managing Director informing that the matter was examined in the light of Cooperative Societies Act, with respect to 3% allocation from profit of the bank to the pension fund corpus of the bank employees and the Rules and bye-laws of the bank. Since there exists no provision for allocation of profit towards Pension Fund Corpus in the present bye-laws No. 79 to 81, therefore, it was advised to carry out necessary amendment in the bye-laws after meeting all the requirements of Rule-8 of H.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971 to proceed further in the matter and the bank shall ensure to follow due procedure before submitting such proposals to the Directorate in future and also another letter dated 29.3.2010 Annexure R-3/3 on the same subject, whereby the Managing Director was informed that the proposal submitted by the bank with respect to 3% allocation from the profit of the bank to the Pension Fund Corpus was considered and rejected. It further clarified that no contribution was to be made by the bank except the proposed contribution of interest of the initial fund allocation of Rs. 50.00 lacs. 12. It was also the case of the said respondents that the Bank had credited 3% of the net profit or allocation of Rs. It further clarified that no contribution was to be made by the bank except the proposed contribution of interest of the initial fund allocation of Rs. 50.00 lacs. 12. It was also the case of the said respondents that the Bank had credited 3% of the net profit or allocation of Rs. 2.00 crore each years for 2003 to 2005 from the bank fund. Since it was contrary to the scheme, thus the second respondent i.e. Registrar, Cooperative Societies ordered for its deduction including the interest thereof. The total amount was Rs. 3,57.47,704/-, therefore the fund became deficient and the pension and scheme both were closed. The replying respondents also placed on record Annexure R-3/4 and R-3/5 showing the position as on 31.3.2010, perusal of which shows that by excluding Rs. 6.00 crores with interest thereon from the fund, the Pension Fund Corpus has become insufficient/deficient, unworkable and self unsustainable. 13. Shri Ranjan Sharma, learned counsel for the aforesaid respondents submitted that a group of 165 serving employees of the bank had requested the bank vide Annexure R-3/6 to stop deduction of contribution from their salaries and to refund the contribution made by them in view of the mismatch between the inflow and outflow. The learned counsel also referred to the various provisions of the scheme quoted above, by which the retirees were to be given "pension" and "family pension" ( in case of death of an employee) as per the provision of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, but submitted that once the retired employees, including the members of the petitioner association were inadvertently given "commuted pension" vide Annexure P-6 without their being any provision for the same in the Scheme and the Deed caused inadvertent release of commuted pension and the pension worked out according to the CCA (CCS) Rules has led to the unworkability of the Scheme. He also ventilated that the second respondent directed the respondent-bank vide letter dated 21.4.2010 vide Annexure R-3/7 to consider the disbanding/discontinuing the scheme when the scheme had become self unsustainable. In compliance thereof, the Board of Directors met and considered the matter on 24.4.2010 vide Annexure R-3/8 and decided to discontinue the scheme, as such it was rightly stopped. 14. He also ventilated that the second respondent directed the respondent-bank vide letter dated 21.4.2010 vide Annexure R-3/7 to consider the disbanding/discontinuing the scheme when the scheme had become self unsustainable. In compliance thereof, the Board of Directors met and considered the matter on 24.4.2010 vide Annexure R-3/8 and decided to discontinue the scheme, as such it was rightly stopped. 14. To counter the above submissions, Shri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-association, ventilated that the second respondent was one of the member of the General House, when the scheme was approved, he did not raise any objection and later he acted contrary to the wishes of the House and mis-conducted himself by adopting double standard. He also submitted that the arbitrary action of the respondent to stop the pension and reviewing the pension scheme is against the principle of natural justice. He also referred Annexure P-9, which, according to him, depicts that the closing balance of the scheme was Rs. 19,17,78,557/-. He also pointed out that under the Act, Rules and bye-laws of the bank, there is no provision to grant ex-gratia and payment of bonus, but the bank still devised a method to pay ex gratia grant to the employees. Even, full salary of two months is distributed to the existing employees from the net profit. He also referred Annexure P-10 received under the Right to Information Act whereby the respondents had distributed Ex-gratia, right from the post of Managing Director to the subordinate staff of the bank and the amount so distributed was Rs. 3,85,73,596/- for the year 2008-09. In nut-shell, he submitted that the second respondent had approved his scheme and he had no power to dislodge his own action, particularly when the General House had passed the scheme. He further ventilated that once the General House has approved the allocation of fund, it cannot be excluded without his own consent by the second respondent. It is also pointed out that the welfare fund and the pension scheme both are one and the same thing. According to him, old as well as new employees both are covered under it and the scheme aforesaid applied automatically to the serving employees of the bank and also to the retirees as aforesaid. Shri Ranjan Sharma, learned counsel also disputed the maintainability of the writ. 15. According to him, old as well as new employees both are covered under it and the scheme aforesaid applied automatically to the serving employees of the bank and also to the retirees as aforesaid. Shri Ranjan Sharma, learned counsel also disputed the maintainability of the writ. 15. The "State" for the purpose of Part-III of the Constitution is defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It reads: "In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. 16. The Apex Court laid down several factors which are required to be considered in determining whether the institution is an agency or instrumentality of the Government. The Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others etc., AIR 1981 SC 487 summarised the relevant tests gathered from the International Airport Authority's case for determining whether the Regional Engineering College Srinagar established under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898 was an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships have held as under:- "The tests for determining as to when a corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of Government may be culled out from the judgment in the International Airport Authority's case [ AIR 1979 SC 1628 ]. These tests are not conclusive or clinching, but they are merely indicative indicia which have to be used with care and caution, because while stressing the necessity of a wide meaning to be placed on the expression "other authorities", it must be realised that it should not be stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government with the sweep of the expression. A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. The relevant tests gathered from the decision in the International Airport Authority's case may be summarised as follows: (i) "One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way towards indicating that the Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government". The relevant tests gathered from the decision in the International Airport Authority's case may be summarised as follows: (i) "One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way towards indicating that the Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government". (ii) "Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character". (iii) "It may also be a relevant factor...... whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or State protected". (iv) "Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the Corporation is a state agency or instrumentality." (v) "If the functions of the corporation of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation an instrumentality or agency of Government." (vi) "Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference" of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government." If on a consideration of these relevant factors, it is found that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of government, it would, as pointed out in the International Airport Authority's case, be an 'authority' and, therefore 'State' within the meaning of the expression in Article 12. We may point out that it is immaterial for this purpose whether the corporation is created by a statute or under a statute. The test is whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and not as to how it is created. The enquiry has to be not as to how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence. The corporation may be a statutory corporation created by a statute or it may be a Government company or a company formed under the Companies Act, 1956 or it may be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or any other similar statute. Whatever be its genetical origin, it would be an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and that would have to be decided on a proper assessment of the facts in the light of the relevant factors. Whatever be its genetical origin, it would be an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and that would have to be decided on a proper assessment of the facts in the light of the relevant factors. The concept of instrumentality or agency of the Government is not limited to a corporation created by a statute but is equally applicable to a company or society and in a given case it would have to be decided, on a consideration of the relevant factors, whether the company or society is an instrumentality or agency of the Government so as to come within the meaning of the expression "authority" in Article 12. It is in the light of this discussion that we must now proceed to examine whether the Society in the present case is an "authority" falling within the definition of "State" in Article 12. Is it an instrumentality or agency of the Government? The answer must obviously be in the affirmative if we have regard to the Memorandum of Association and the Rules of the Society. The composition of the Society is dominated by the representatives appointed by the Central Government and the Governments of Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh with the approval of the Central Government. The monies required for running the college are provided entirely by the Central Government and the Government of Jammu & Kashmir and even if any other monies are to be received by the Society, it can be done only with the approval of the State and the Central Governments. The Rules to be made by the Society are also required to have the prior approval of the State and the Central Governments and the accounts of the Society have also to be submitted to both the Governments for their scrutiny and satisfaction. The Society is also to comply with all such directions as may be issued by the State Government with the approval of the Central Government in respect of any matters dealt with in the report of the Reviewing Committee. The control of the State and the Central Governments is indeed so deep and pervasive that no immovable property of the Society can be disposed of in any manner without the approval of both the Governments. The control of the State and the Central Governments is indeed so deep and pervasive that no immovable property of the Society can be disposed of in any manner without the approval of both the Governments. The State and the Central Governments have even the power to appoint any other person or persons to be members of the 'Society and any member of the Society other than a member representing the State or Central Govt. can be removed from the membership of the Society by the State Government with the approval of the Central Government. The Board of Governors which is in-charge of general superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of Society and of its income and property is also largely controlled by nominees of the State and the Central Governments. It will thus be seen that the State Government and by reason of the provision for approval, the Central Government also, have full control of the working of the Society and it would not be incorrect to say that the Society is merely a projection of the State and the Central Governments and ;to use the words of Ray, C. J. in Sukhdev Singh's case ( AIR 1975 SC 1331 ) (supra) the voice is that of the State and the Central Governments and the hands are also of the State and the Central Governments. We must, therefore, hold that the Society is an instrumentality or the agency of the State and the Central Governments and it is an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12". 17. Further in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others, (2002) 5 SCC 111 per majority judgment of the apex Court held to test to determine as formulated in Ajay Hasia's case supra for determining as to when a Corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of the Government are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesis, be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case, would be whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. The question in each case, would be whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If yes, then the body is a State. 18. Shri Ranjan Sharma put his reliance on a case decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Chandresh Kumar Malhotra v. H.P. State Coop.Bank and Others, 1993 (2) Sim. L.C. 243. While examining the matter, the Division Bench in a case of the H.P. State Cooperative Bank in the light of the various law came to the conclusion that none of the tests were satisfied that the State Cooperative Bank was characterised as "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The reliance was also put by Shri Ranjan Sharma, to the judgment passed by the apex Court in S.S. Rana v. Registrar, Coop. Societies and Another, (2006) 11 SCC 634 , whereby, it was held that the respondent-bank is not an instrumentality of the State, which was so held because there was no material on record to conclude otherwise. In Mohinder Singh Guleri v. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank, CWP(T) No.9979 of 2008 decided on 10.8.2011 the learned Single Judge of this Court while considering the application of S.S. Rana's case supra, also found that material on the record in that case before the apex Court did not show that the State had more than 50 per cent of the capital share in the bank. However, a Bench of this Court in Kuldeep Singh and others v. State of H.P. and others, 2011 (2) Him.L.R. 899 held that the material placed on record of that case established that the State had about 60 per cent share in the capital of the bank, and, hence it (respondent bank) is an instrumentality of the State. In other words, the apex Court in S.S. Rana's case supra came to the conclusion that the respondent-bank is not an instrumentality of the State, was rendered, on account of lack of material on record, indicating that the bank was owned/controlled by the State, because of latter's share in capital being more than 50 per cent. In other words, the apex Court in S.S. Rana's case supra came to the conclusion that the respondent-bank is not an instrumentality of the State, was rendered, on account of lack of material on record, indicating that the bank was owned/controlled by the State, because of latter's share in capital being more than 50 per cent. Had any material been there, on the record of the case, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, suggesting that the State had more than 50 per cent share in the capital of the bank, the aforesaid finding could not have been there. 19. The learned counsel for the respondents admitted that the State had more than 50 per cent share in the capital of the bank. The Registrar of the Cooperative Societies is a member of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services. The perusal of Cooperative Societies Act reveals that the respondent-Society cannot budge even an inch without his approval, therefore, there is deep and pervasive control of the State Government not only on its employees by the second respondent as ventilated by the learned counsel for the respondents but also on the working of respondent-Bank, as is evident from the facts in hand that the respondent-bank has more than 50% share of the Government; it is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or is under the control of the State Government, as also the Government nominates members of the Managing Committee (BOD) under Section 35 of Cooperative Societies Act, also 1/3 of the members are appointed by the Registrar under Rule 39 framed under the Act. Even under Rule 49, he is empowered to inter-alia issue general or special orders to the Managing Committee to raise and invest funds. Therefore, the State has a deep and pervasive control on its working. Hence, the respondent-bank is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, in my opinion, the writ is maintainable against the respondent-bank. 20. Now coming to the other submissions, it is evident from the aims and objectives of the Pension Scheme that it was launched to mitigate the hardships being faced by the employees of the respondent-bank. Therefore, in my opinion, the writ is maintainable against the respondent-bank. 20. Now coming to the other submissions, it is evident from the aims and objectives of the Pension Scheme that it was launched to mitigate the hardships being faced by the employees of the respondent-bank. This scheme came into force on and w.e.f. 1.1.1998 as approved by the General House which provided to raise Pension Fund Corpus to be managed by the respondent-bank itself and shall earn a rate of interest fixed at 10% in future and the employees of the bank were held entitled for the pension on the Government formula out of the 'Pension Fund Corpus'. All the CCS (Pension) Rules of the Government regarding calculation of the pension etc. were made applicable under this scheme. Though the scheme was self sustaining and if need arises at any stage, the employees contribution could be raised. The terms and conditions of the scheme aforesaid were applied for a period of five years in the first instance, which was required to be reconsidered for further five years based upon the available of corpus balance and projected inflows and outflows in the succeeding five years and the necessary revision of the employees contribution was also required to be made. But from the record, it reveals that the respondents unprofessionally managed the said scheme and no review of the scheme was considered within the stipulated time in its letter and spirit. 21. Further the BOD could only be competent to alter/amend the terms and conditions of the Bank with the prior approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, but the Scheme approved by the General House which is supreme body, did not empower BOD for its closure. Since it was self sustaining scheme, the bank was to mange it being a trustee. The Trust deed Annexure P-4 provides that all the retired employees of the bank who had served 10 years were also eligible to join the scheme, if their share @ 1.50 % of their last drawn pay (salary + dearness allowance) for the last ten years effective from the date of retirement. The employees entering service after 1.1.1998 and participating in the pension scheme were also held entitled to family pension as per Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The employees entering service after 1.1.1998 and participating in the pension scheme were also held entitled to family pension as per Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Trust Deed, inter-alia also provides that every employee shall on his initial confirmation in service, make a nomination conferring on one or more persons of his choice, to receive the payment of death gratuity on his behalf in the event of his death before he receives the payment and the trustees shall make the payment accordingly. In the event of there being no such nomination, the trustees shall require probate or letter of administration or succession certificate or the claimant should prove to the satisfaction of the trustees as to genuineness of his claim. For the matters not provided herein, this trust was subject to the limitations and guidelines etc. as provided in the CCS (Pension) Rules, Indian Trust Act and also the Income Tax Act. Thus the scheme was self explicit and comprehensive in its terms and conditions. One group of the employees to whom this scheme applied had contributed to this scheme which could not have been altered to their prejudice without hearing them or the representatives of the employees, who entered into service after the implementation of the scheme, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the effected parties, which is blatantly against the principle of natural justice. 22. The Supreme Court in Prakash Ratan Sinha v. State of Bihar and others, (2009) 14 SCC 690 held that if there is a power to decide and decide detrimentally to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in exercise of such a power and that the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made. Thus, the hearing should have been afforded to the petitioners before deciding adverse to them, because it has civil consequences. Therefore, the closure of the pension scheme Annexure P-3 to the prejudice of the petitioners-Association as aforesaid by the BOD is unsustainable. Thus, the hearing should have been afforded to the petitioners before deciding adverse to them, because it has civil consequences. Therefore, the closure of the pension scheme Annexure P-3 to the prejudice of the petitioners-Association as aforesaid by the BOD is unsustainable. It should have been placed before the General House to take appropriate decision in the matter and also after reviewing its pros and cons, the resolution could have been passed either to continue or alter the scheme, but its closure was not within the powers and ambit of the Board of Directors [See Air India Employees Self Contributory Superannuation Pension Scheme v. Kuriakose V. Cherian and others, (2005) 8 SCC 404 . 23. While expanding horizons of socioeconomic justice, the socialist Republic and welfare State which the country endeavours to set up and the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, by closing the scheme arbitrarily which is unconstitutional and cannot be held. 24. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the stopping of the pension was a policy decision, which cannot be interfered with by the Government. 25. Legally, an executive order terms as a policy decision is not beyond the pale of judicial review. Though the superior Courts may not interfere with the nitty-gritty of the policy, or substitute one by the other but it will not bee correct to contend that the Court shall lay its judicial hands off, when a plea is raised that the impugned decision is a policy decision. In Delhi Development Authority and Another v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 672 , the apex Court held that the interference therewith on the part of the superior Court would not be without jurisdiction as it is subject to judicial review. Broadly, a policy decision is subject to judicial review on the following grounds: (a) if it is unconstitutional; (b) if it is dehors the provisions of the Act and the regulations; (c) if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation; and (d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy. 26. Broadly, a policy decision is subject to judicial review on the following grounds: (a) if it is unconstitutional; (b) if it is dehors the provisions of the Act and the regulations; (c) if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation; and (d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy. 26. In the instant case, the withdrawing of the scheme by the BOD when it was approved by the General House, which is a final authority, is contrary to the provisions of the Policy and the second respondent has acted beyond his powers delegated under the Act. 27. The change of the policy and withdrawal has to be made in the same process in which it has been made, which lacks in the present case. 28. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders Annexures R-3/7 and R-3/8 discontinuing of policy are hereby quashed and set aside. Thus there shall be a direction to respondent No.2 to place the Scheme before the General House for reconsideration and take a final decision in the matter whether to continue the Scheme with some modifications, if required or to completely disband it or suggest alternative proposal. Such a decision be taken after affording hearing to the petitioners and also the respondent-bank within four months from the production of the copy of this judgment. 29. With the above directions, this petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.