ORDER A. Rajasheker Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner/appellant filed this petition with a prayer to grant leave to file the writ appeal against order dated 12.10.2012 in W.F. No. 31674 of 2012. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he is the shareholder of the 3rd respondent bank and he has right to protect its financial interest. The 4th and 5th respondents filed the afore-stated writ petition seeking implementation of revised pay scales 2010 to the members of the 4th respondent Union in terms of item-2 in G.O.Ms. No. 170, Agriculture & Cooperation (Coop.III) Department, dated 14.06.2010, and the same was disposed of on 12.10.2012 directing the 3rd respondent bank to conclude the subject exercise of implementing the revised pay scales 2010 to its employees within two months. His grievance is that though the order was passed on 12.10.2012, but on the very next day, the 3rd respondent bank in collusion with the writ petitioners/4th and 5th respondents disbursed about ` 42 lakhs of bank funds to its employees arbitrarily, even without receipt of copy of order in the writ petition and that in this regard, he gave a complaint to the Commissioner and Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 20.11.2012, but no action has been taken. It is his further case that by implementing the revised pay scales 2010, the financial interest of the 3rd respondent bank will be jeopardised. Hence, he sought for leave to file the writ appeal. 2. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent bank denying the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and contending inter alia that the lis in the writ petition is pure service matter between the 3rd respondent bank and its employees. The petitioner is in the habit of instituting such frivolous and vexatious litigations. In fact, the petitioner styling himself as an agriculturist and a staunch devotee of Lord Venkateswara, instituted W.P. No. 24124 of 2009 challenging the orders of extension of service granted to one Sri P. Seshadri as Officer-on-Special Duty in the establishment of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams till 01.08.2011 and the same was also a service matter. The said writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the extension granted to Sri P. Seshadri as an Officer-on-Special Duty in TTD. The said writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the extension granted to Sri P. Seshadri as an Officer-on-Special Duty in TTD. Against which, Sri P. Seshadri preferred Civil Appeal No. 2688 of 2011 before the Supreme Court and the same was allowed, by categorically observing that the petitioner ought not to have been permitted to pursue the writ petition as a public interest litigation as the same was instituted for achieving oblique motives on the basis of wild and reckless allegations made by individuals i.e., busy bodies, having little or no interest in the proceedings, that the petitioner has no special concern with the extension granted to Sri P. Seshadri and that the matter pertains to pure and simple service matter. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The matter decided by the learned Single Judge is a pure service matter as it relates to implementation of revised pay scales 2010 to the employees of the 3rd respondent bank by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 170, Agriculture & Cooperation (Coop. III) Department, dated 14.06.2010. As held by the Apex Court in the decision in P. Seshadri v. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy and others 2011 (4) SCJ 187 : 2011 (2) Sup 646 : 2011 (5) ALT 27 .2 (DN SC), public interest litigations cannot be entertained in service matters. In the present case also, the petitioner wants to convert the pure service matter into public interest litigation which cannot be permitted, as the dispute is between the 3rd respondent bank and its employees. Merely because the petitioner is a shareholder in the 3rd respondent bank, he cannot interdict the proceedings regarding the implementation of revised pay scales 2010 by virtue of the above-mentioned G.O. issued by the Government. 5. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal stands rejected.