JUDGMENT : Tarun Agarwala, J. List has been revised. The learned counsel for the respondent is not present. Heard Sri Sharad Sharma, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Pradeep Chamiyal, the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are employees of Zila Bhesuchj Evam Sehkari Sangh Ltd. Kotdwar Garhwal and are working as Accountant, Driver, Clerk, Salesman, Chowkidar, Cashier, etc. It is alleged that the petitioners were being paid dearness allowance, etc. as given to State Government employees, but from 1997, this dearness allowance was stopped as the Society in which the petitioners were working underwent a financial crisis. It is alleged that even though the respondents had resolved to pay the arrears of dearness allowance but neither the arrears have been paid nor the dearness allowance for subsequent years have been paid. The petitioner made a representation, which fell on deaf ears and, accordingly, have filed the present writ petition, praying for a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to pay the dearness and house rent allowance along with arrears w.e.f. 1.7.1997. 2. The respondents in their counter affidavit have denied the claim and contended that they are not bound by the Government Orders which provide for payment of dearness allowance to its employees. The respondents contended that they are a Society under the Societies Registration Act and the notification issued by the Government is not applicable. 3. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the petitioners contend that the services of the petitioners are governed by the Rules known as Uttar Pradesh Central Consumer Cooperative Stores Employees Service Regulations, 1986, which fact is admitted by the respondents in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit. 4. From a perusal of the writ petition and the vague replies given in the counter affidavit, it is apparently clear that the petitioners were getting dearness allowance till 1996 and w.e.f. 1.7.1997 dearness allowance has not been paid to them. 5. Rule 38 of the aforesaid Rules, which have statutory force, is extracted hereunder: 38. Employees of a Cooperative Store shall be entitled for dearness allowance at the rates admissible to government employees and, subject to the prior approval of Registrar, such other allowances as may be determined by the appointing authority from time to time. 6. 5. Rule 38 of the aforesaid Rules, which have statutory force, is extracted hereunder: 38. Employees of a Cooperative Store shall be entitled for dearness allowance at the rates admissible to government employees and, subject to the prior approval of Registrar, such other allowances as may be determined by the appointing authority from time to time. 6. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the employees of a Cooperative Store would be entitled to dearness allowance at the rates admissible to government employees subject to prior approval of the Registrar. 7. The denial of the dearness allowance by the respondents on the ground of financial constraints is unwarranted. An employee is entitled for pay and other allowances and denial of such entitlement is wholly unwarranted and violative of the rights of the petitioners. If the respondents are unable to manage their affairs they should close their shop and retrench their employees but it is not open to the respondents to contend that they will continue to take work from the employees without giving them their due share. Dearness allowance is a component to combat the inflation and, therefore, dearness allowance is to be paid in addition to the basic salary which the petitioners are getting. Non payment of dearness allowance amounts to unfair labour practice. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to pay dearness allowance to the petitioners with immediate effect. Such dearness allowance shall be calculated and paid with immediate effect. In so far as the arrears are concerned, the petitioners should make an appropriate application. Upon such application being filed, the respondents would consider and pass appropriate order within three months.