JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. 1. All these petitions raise a common question of law pertaining to the right of the petitioners all officers of the respondent Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter 'the Bank') for payment of gratuity under Rule 7 of the Service Rules and Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1964') @ 20 months pay last drawn on the date of their superannuation without the limit of Rs. 3.50 lakhs than extant under Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1972'). 2. SBCWP No. 6343/2008, Lala Ram Sharma Vs. Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Another, is taken as the lead case. 3. The petitioner when superannuated on 30-4-2007 after 38 years of service with the respondent Bank was a Senior Manager. His last gross salary i.e. Basic + DA was Rs. 28,114.14. The respondent Bank governed by the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 now replaced as Rajasthan State Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001') framed Service rules and Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter 'the Regulations of 1964') approved by the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 6-1-1964 to regulate the service conditions of its employees. Rule 7 of the Regulations of 1964 provides for payment of gratuity, and reads as under:- Rule 7 Gratuity (a) When a permanent employee who has rendered approved and meritorious service to the Bank ceases to be in its employment on account of death or retirement, the Board, at its discretion, may sanction payment of a gratuity to such an employee or his heirs, as the case may be provided: (i) he has completed continuous service for a minimum period of ten years and (ii) in case of death while in service he was in continuous service for not less than five years. (b) Gratuity shall not be admissible in the case of any employee who is dismissed from service or who leaves, resigns or discontinues the service without written permission or whose services are terminated by the Bank as a disciplinary measure. (c) The amount of gratuity payable shall be at the rate of one month's substantive salary last drawn, for each year of completed service, subject to a maximum of 20 months salary." 4. (c) The amount of gratuity payable shall be at the rate of one month's substantive salary last drawn, for each year of completed service, subject to a maximum of 20 months salary." 4. It was submitted that in view of bipartite settlements dated 14-5-1980, 7-8-1987 and 25-3-1997 between the respondent Bank and its officers' Association it was agreed that gratuity would be paid to the officers on their superannuation on the basis of salary last drawn by them at the rate of one month's salary for each completed year of service, subject to a maximum of twenty months salary. It was submitted that albeit the extant Section 4(3) of the Act of 1972 provided that amount of gratuity payable to an employee not exceed Rs. 3.50 lacs (Rupees three lacs fifty thousands) yet section 4(5) of the Act of 1972 as an exception thereto provided that nothing in section 4(3) aforesaid shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer. Therefore in view of Section 4(5) of the Act of 1972 the terms of Bipartite settlements aforesaid prevail over the limit for payment of gratuity as provided in Section 4(3) of the Act of 1972. 5. It has been submitted that the respondent Bank has however arbitrarily not acted in terms of the Bipartite settlements for payment of gratuity to the petitioner who has been paid only Rs. 3,50,000/-, while under the relevant bipartite settlements the petitioner was entitled to gratuity in an amount of Rs. 5,62,283/- i.e. computed on the basis of the last drawn salary of Rs. 28,114.14 (per month) (28,114.14 x 20) Hence it be directed that the balance of gratuity amount of Rs. 2,12,283/- be paid to the petitioner along with interest @ 24% from the date of his retirement 30-4-2007 till the date of payment. It has been submitted that arbitrary inaction of the respondent Bank is compounded by the fact that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in SBCWP No. 4824/1993, Kalyan Mal Choudhary Vs. Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank decided on 28-3-1997 which was upheld by the Division Bench in DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1270/1997, decided on 4-12-2007. Hence this petition. 6. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank decided on 28-3-1997 which was upheld by the Division Bench in DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1270/1997, decided on 4-12-2007. Hence this petition. 6. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Rahul Kamwar counsel for bank stating that the respondent bank, albeit first governed by the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and now by the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 is not a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that in any event no foundational facts have been pleaded in the petition for this court to hold that the respondent Bank is a "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies is only the regulatory authority over the respondent Bank and this fact by itself is not sufficient to hold it to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2013 SCW 5683 wherein the Apex Court has held that Cooperative Societies are not statutory bodies created by statute but are only body corporates, where the final authority vests in their general body and not in the Registrar Cooperative Societies, even though he may exercise regulatory powers, conferred by statute over them, and consequently it cannot be held that registered Cooperative Societies on which the government has no administrative as distinguished from regulatory control nor has any substantial financial participation therein partake the character of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. From the facts on record, on merits, the petitioner appears to have an open and shut case, as is evident from the judgment of this court in the case of Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Shrichandra Singh, DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 579 of 2007, decided on 16-5-2011. Yet for the reason that the issue of jurisdiction of this court to hear this petition has been raised by counsel for the respondent Bank relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case Thalappalam Ser. Cooperative Bank (supra), I am inclined not to interfere in the writ petition. Issues of jurisdiction go to the root of the matter and are sacrosanct. Cooperative Bank (supra), I am inclined not to interfere in the writ petition. Issues of jurisdiction go to the root of the matter and are sacrosanct. Further the petitioner has neither pleaded relevant foundational facts to hold that respondent Bank falls in the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India nor his counsel has been able to distinguish the case at hand on any material basis from the enunciation of law by the Apex Court in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Cooperative Bank (supra). There is thus no cause for this court to deviate from the legal position obtaining and entertain the petition on a bald assumption that the respondent Bank is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Instead I would be inclined to direct that the petitioner should approach the controlling authority under the Act of 1972 which as per the case of respondent Bank itself, as set in paragraph 4 of the reply to writ petition, has the jurisdiction to address the issue of alleged short payment of gratuity otherwise payable to the petitioner as claimed by him in terms of bipartite settlements dated 14-5-1980, 7-8-1987 and 25-3-1997 between the Officers Union of the respondent Bank and the respondent Bank. 9. In the circumstances, it is directed that in the event of an appropriate application under Section 8 of the Act of 1972 is moved by the petitioner before the controlling authority it shall be disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks of its filing keeping in mind the judgment of this court in the case of Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Shrichandra Singh, DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 579 of 2007, decided on 16-5-2011 as also in the case of Kalyan Mal Choudhary Vs. Raj. State Cooperative Bank Ltd., 1997 (2) WLC (Raj.) 743 which has also been affirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5347/2008 decided on 22-7-2015. 10. Shrichandra Singh, DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 579 of 2007, decided on 16-5-2011 as also in the case of Kalyan Mal Choudhary Vs. Raj. State Cooperative Bank Ltd., 1997 (2) WLC (Raj.) 743 which has also been affirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5347/2008 decided on 22-7-2015. 10. If the issue of delay in filing an application under section 8 of the Act of 1972 arises, the period between the filing of the writ petition (8-7-2008 till two weeks from today) shall be excluded from being counted for computation of limitation for reasons analogous to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in view of the fact that the petitioner had approached this court by filing this writ petition on 8-7-2008. The petitioner shall also be free to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if warranted, seeking condonation of further delay, if any, after the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as stated above. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 12. All connected writ petitions are similarly disposed of. The judgment in the instant case shall apply mutatis mutandis thereto. 13. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.