JUDGMENT : Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—To question correctness of the judgment dated July 10, 2015 in a batch of writ petitions led by SB Civil Writ Petition No.10043/2010, Natwar Lal vs. The Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors., these appeals are preferred. By the judgment impugned learned Single Bench while accepting the writ petitions directed the appellant respondent to make fixation of the respondent petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.3390-14550 from the date they were absorbed in service of the appellant bank. 2. The submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the direction given by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies while exercising powers under Rule 39(1) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2003') was only to protect pay of the persons absorbed in service of the bank by awarding personal pay and not for making their fixation in the revised pay scales. According to learned counsel the direction given is running contrary to the order passed by the Registrar exercising the statutory authority. 3. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the respondent petitioners, while in employment of the Rajasthan State Cooperative Spinning and Ginning Mill Federation Limited (SPINFED) commonly known as Tilam Sangh, were sent on deputation to different cooperative institutions including the appellant bank. A conscious decision was taken by the Government of Rajasthan for absorption of these employees with the institution where they were on deputation. Accordingly, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, exercising powers under Rule 39(1) of the Rules of 2003, passed an order dated 24.2.2005 for absorption of the employees on deputation with the institution they were on deputation subject to following conditions:- (1) a post should be vacant with the institution concerned for permanent absorption; (2) the employee concerned shall be given seniority below the employees of the same cadre in the institution where absorption is to be made; (3) if the employee is getting higher pay than the post in pay scale of which fixation is to be made, his pay is to be protected by awarding personal pay; and (4) the liability to pay the service benefits such as Gratuity, Provident etc. for the period before absorption, shall be on parent institution. The institution absorbing such employees shall be having no liability in this regard. 4. for the period before absorption, shall be on parent institution. The institution absorbing such employees shall be having no liability in this regard. 4. In pursuance to the order dated 24.2.2005 the respondent petitioners were absorbed in service of the appellant bank w.e.f. 15.2.2006. The appellant bank while absorbing the petitioners in service protected their pay as per the directions given by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Their pay was also fixed in the pay scale applicable as per the pay scales revised under the 12th pay agreement between the union of Cooperative Societies Employees and the Apex body of the Cooperative Societies. Suffice to mention that 12th pay agreement as a matter of fact was not in currency on the day the respondent petitioners were absorbed in service of the appellant, but due to non-availability of any other pay agreement revising the pay scales, the pay scales of the respondent petitioners were fixed as per the 12th pay agreement. 5. The pay scales were ultimately revised under the 13th pay agreement and those were made applicable w.e.f. 1.1.2004. The application of 13th pay agreement qua the respondent petitioners was made with effect from the date they were absorbed in service of the appellant bank and the pay scale of Rs.3390-14550 was allowed. While allowing the pay scale aforesaid the pay of the petitioners was fixed at Rs.6230/- by taking into consideration their earlier fixation as per the pay scales given in 12th pay agreement. The case of the petitioners is that on application of 13th pay agreement the respondents should make their fixation at the fist instance in the pay scales given under the pay agreement existing on the date of their absorption in service. Meaning thereby, their fixation should have been made in the pay point corresponding to the pay point on which they were fixed in their parent institution. The respondents did not grant the same with assertion that fixation of their pay was made in the pay scales given under the 12th pay agreement and, therefore, the fixation in revised pay agreement is required to be made on that basis only. Learned Single Bench while examining this issue accepted the claim and directed accordingly. 6. The respondents did not grant the same with assertion that fixation of their pay was made in the pay scales given under the 12th pay agreement and, therefore, the fixation in revised pay agreement is required to be made on that basis only. Learned Single Bench while examining this issue accepted the claim and directed accordingly. 6. In appeals, it is submitted by Shri Harish Purohit, appearing on behalf of the appellant bank, that the day on which the petitioners were absorbed in service of the bank, the 13th pay agreement was not existing, therefore, fixation of pay of these employees was made as per the pay scales given in the 12th pay agreement. The revision of pay subsequently on introduction of 13th pay agreement could have been made on that basis only. The respondent petitioners cannot claim for fixation of their pay by equalising the pay point on which they were running in their parent institution directly with the revised pay scales introduced under the 13th pay agreement. 7. We do not find any merit with the argument advanced. 8. The respondent petitioners were absorbed in the services of the appellant bank in the month of February, 2006 and admittedly on that day neither the 12th pay agreement nor the 13th pay agreement were in existence. The 13th pay agreement was introduced on 23.10.2008 w.e.f. 1.1.2004. On retrospective application, it is to be assumed that in the month of February, 2006 pay fixation of the respondent petitioners was required to be made as per the revised pay scales introduced under the 13th pay agreement. For making such fixation the relevant pay point was the pay point on which the respondent petitioners were running in their parent institution and not the pay point as per the 12th pay agreement. The appellant bank, therefore, was under obligation to fix the respondent petitioners at the first instance in the pay scale of Rs.3390-14550 by taking into consideration the pay point in the pay scale the respondent petitioners were running at the time of their absorption in service of the appellant bank. The fixation of the petitioners in the manner suggested by the appellant bank would deprive the petitioners from fixation of their pay in the 13th pay agreement which by its retrospective application was existing on the date of their absorption in the service of the appellant bank. The fixation of the petitioners in the manner suggested by the appellant bank would deprive the petitioners from fixation of their pay in the 13th pay agreement which by its retrospective application was existing on the date of their absorption in the service of the appellant bank. As a matter of fact the order dated 21.7.2009 also refers for the same, but the bank executed that erroneously. 9. In view of whatever stated above, we do not find any wrong with the judgment impugned that may warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. The appeals, therefore, are dismissed being bereft of merit.