JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel, Mr. A Bhowmik for the petitioners, learned GA, Mr. TD Majumdar for the State respondent No.1 and learned counsel, Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee for the respondent Nos. 2&3. 2. Pursuant to an advertisement issued vide memo No.F.14/MNGT/VolIII/08 dated 03.10.2008 (AnnexureP/1 to the writ petition) by the respondent No.2, for filling up the posts namely(1) Gr. IV Officer, (2) Clerk cum computer Operator, (3) Asstt. Grade employee and (4) Group-D (Peon), the petitioners applied for the particular respective post and after an interview process, Mithun Dey, petitioner of WP(C) 934/2016, Tapash Shome, petitioner of WP(C)936/2016, Ashish Karmakar, petitioner of WP(C) 941/2016, Uttam Kumar Debbarma, petitioner of WP(C) 937/2016, Ratan Chakraborty, petitioner of WP(C)935/2016, and Tangosouh Rai Reang, petitioner of WP(C)942/2016 were selected for the post of “Grade IV Officer”. Simultaneously, Mira Dutta Paul, petitioner of WP(C) 933/2016 and Liton Sarkar, petitioner of WP(C) 940/2016 were selected for the post of “Clerk cum Computer Operator”. Sanjay Chandra Saha, petitioner of WP(C) 944/2016, Rabi Kumar Debbarma, petitioner of WP(C) 943/2016, Satya Ranjan Das, petitioner of WP(C) 946/2016, Krishnendu Kishore Das, petitioner of WP(C) 945/2016 and Dinesh Chakma, petitioner of WP(C) 939 of 2016 were selected for the post of “Assistant Grade Officer”. Indrajit Debbarma, petitioner of WP(C)938/2016, was selected for the “Group-D post”. 3. It is an undisputed fact that upon their selection in due process, they were given offer and they accepted the offer and joined the respect posts in the year 2010. It is also an admitted position that the appointments were made on fixed pay purely on temporary basis. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as per Rules keeping the regular vacancy in abeyance following the government norms as a fixed pay employee and they relied on Office Order dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure P/6 to the writ petition). The grievance of the petitioners is that the State Government in the Finance Department issued memo No. F.10(2)FIN(G)/05/PartI dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure P/7 to the writ petition) whereunder it was decided that the employees appointed on fixed pay basis shall be given regular pay scale after completion of 5 years of service. All the petitioners claimed their regularization in the service with regular pay scale in view of memo dated 16.10.2007 but they have not been given the same. They issued notice through their engaged learned counsel and in reply the respondent Nos. All the petitioners claimed their regularization in the service with regular pay scale in view of memo dated 16.10.2007 but they have not been given the same. They issued notice through their engaged learned counsel and in reply the respondent Nos. 2&3 informed their counsel that the Bank did not give any commitment to the fixed pay employees that on completion of five years of service as fixed pay employees, their pay scale would be regularized. So the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for directing the respondent Nos. 2&3 to regularize their services and to pay them regular pay scale. 5. Respondent Nos. 2&3 contended that respondent No.2 is a cooperative society and the salary etc. of the employees of respondent No.2 is paid by the Bank and not by the Government. The government decisions are only guiding factor which is taken into consideration by the respondent Bank and, therefore, there is no point of regularizing or paying regular pay scale to the petitioners pursuant to memo dated 16.10.2007. 6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners were appointed through a transparent process and they have completed 5 years of service on fixed pay basis. It is also an admitted position that the respondent No.2 is a cooperative bank constituted under the provisions of the Tripura Cooperative Societies Act, 1974. It is therefore a juristic person and a cooperative society is to deal with its subjects according to its own rules and bye laws. 7. The respondent Nos. 2&3 along with their counter affidavit have submitted a copy of the letter No. F.6(5)FIN(PC)/10 dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure R/2 to the counter affidavit) which shows that certain communications were made by the Finance Department of the Government of Tripura to respondent No.2 and other cooperative banks. For ready reference the said letter dated 31.03.2015 is reproduced hereunder:- “GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE *** No.F.6(5)FIN(PC)/10 Dated, Agartala, 31 March 2015 To The General Manager, Agartala Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Tripura Cooperative Agricultural Rural Bank Ltd., Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Subject: Revision of pay structure of employees and works of 3 (three) Cooperative Banks – guidelines regarding. Sir/Madam, I am directed to refer to this Department communications of even number dated 20-07-2010, 04-08-2010 and 19-12-2012 on the subject captioned above and inform you that on further consideration of grievance of the employees of your Organization, the State Government has decided to allow the modified revised pay 6 structure by computing notionally with effect from 01.01.2006 and financial benefit from 01-04-2015 onwards (i.e. for the salary of April, 2015 payable in 1st May, 2015) subject to strict adherence of terms and conditions including modified Pay Band and Grade Pay structure incorporated in the Annexures enclosed with this letter. i. Annexure-A Corresponding between the existing pay scale and the modified revised pay structure, 2015; ii. Annexure-B Containing entry pay in the modified revised pay structure for direct recruits appointed on or after 01.01.2006; iii. Annexure-C Containing Terms and Conditions; 2. In view of the above, I am directed to request you to place the above proposal for revision of pay structure before the Board of Directors/Governing Body/Executive Committee of your Organization for its consideration and adoption alongwith the enclosed Annexures and thereafter obtain administrative approval from the Nodal Department for implementation of the same subject to condition that no deviation under any circumstances should be made beyond the enclosed Annexures while considering the revision without prior concurrence, if any, from the Finance Department. 3. In respect of revision of remuneration of fixed pay employees who were recruited on fixed pay basis in the posts created by keeping abeyance regular scale posts, the Finance Department’s Memorandum No.F.4(16)FIN(PC)/88 dated 31 March 2015 shall be strictly followed. This is, however, subject to condition that financial benefits on the revision of remuneration would be admissible w.e.f. 1st April, 2015 payable in May, 2015. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Illegible (R. DEBBARMA) Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura. Copy to: 1. Secretary/Secretary In-Charge of......... Department (Nodal Department)” 8. It appears that office order dated 09.06.2015 was issued by the respondent No.2 in obedience to that letter of Finance Department dated 31.03.2015, whereunder the petitioners and others who were appointed on fixed pay basis were paid 75% of the minimum slab of entry level pay. 9. Memo dated 16.10.2007 was issued by the Finance Department. It was a policy decision of the State Government and normally it is applicable to the State Government employees. 9. Memo dated 16.10.2007 was issued by the Finance Department. It was a policy decision of the State Government and normally it is applicable to the State Government employees. Learned GA is absolutely correct to say that memo dated 16.10.2007 is applicable to the State Government employees. So far the letter of the Finance Department dated 31.03.2015 is concerned, the office order of respondent No.2 dated 09.06.2015 makes it abundantly clear that respondent No.2 is following the norms of the State Government in respect of the employees of the Cooperative Bank. The very basis of the claim of the petitioners is memo dated 16.10.2007 whereunder a policy decision was taken by the State Government that the fixed pay employees of Group C and Group D on completion of 5 years of service will be provided regular pay scale. I am amply satisfied from the records and the pleadings that the Bank in respect of its employees follows the norms of the State Government regarding recruitment on fixed pay basis and their subsequent regularization, etc., as per the advice of the Finance Department of the Government of Tripura. So the decision of the Finance Department contained in memo dated 16.10.2007 shall apply to the petitioners who are covered by that memorandum. 10. A bare reading of memo dated 16.10.2007 makes it abundantly clear that it has created room for providing regular pay scale to Group-C and Group-D staffs. As it appears, only the petitioners, namely, Mira Dutta Paul, petitioner of WP(C)933/2016 and Liton Sarkar, petitioner of WP(C) 940/2016 were appointed as clerk cum computer operator and as such they were Group-C employees. Sanjay Ch. Saha, petitioner of WP(C)944/2016, Rabi Kumar Debbarma, petitioner of WP(C)943/2016, Satya Ranjan Das, petitioner of WP(C) 946/2016, Krishnendu Kishore Das, petitioner of WP(C) 945/2016 and Dinesh Chakma, petitioner of WP(C) 939 of 2016 were appointed as Assistant Grade Officers and as such they were also Group-C employees. Indrajit Debbarma, the petitioner of WP(C) 938/2016 was appointed as a Group-D employee. So they are covered by the memo dated 16.10.2007 and are entitled to the regular pay scale on completion of their 5 years of service on fixed pay basis. 11. Indrajit Debbarma, the petitioner of WP(C) 938/2016 was appointed as a Group-D employee. So they are covered by the memo dated 16.10.2007 and are entitled to the regular pay scale on completion of their 5 years of service on fixed pay basis. 11. The other petitioners who were appointed as Grade IV Officers were not covered by the memo dated 16.10.2007 and so whether they should be given regular pay scale or not is to be decided by the Bank either in consultation with the Finance Department or otherwise. 12. Since the respondent Bank is following the norms of the State Government in respect of recruitment and payment of pay, etc., I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that as per memo dated 16.10.2007, the petitioners mentioned above are covered by that memo and they are entitled to get the regular pay scale from the date of their completion of five years of service. 13. The payment of regular pay scale and regularization in the service are two different components. Whether a particular employee will be regularized or not, it depends on different factors to be considered by the appropriate authority taking into account the performance, conduct, service record, etc. But while there was a decision of the State Government in the Finance Department and that is being followed by the Bank, the respondent Bank was bound to pay regular pay scale which was kept in abeyance to those petitioners of Group-C and Group-D category on their completion of five years of service. 14. Accordingly, WP(C)933/2016 filed by Mira Dutta Paul, WP(C) 940/2016 filed by Liton Sarkar, WP(C)944/2016 filed by Sanjay Ch. Saha, WP(C)943/2016 filed by Rabi Kumar Debbarma, WP(C) 946/2016 filed by Satya Ranjan Das, WP(C) 945/2016 field by Krishnendu Kishore Das, WP(C) 939 of 2016 filed by Dinesh Chakma and WP(C) 938/2016 filed by Indrajit Debbarma are allowed and the respondent No.2&3 are directed to make payment of regular pay scale to those writ petitioners from the date of their completion of 5 years service. 15. WP(C) 934/2016 filed by Mithun Dey, WP(C)936/2016 filed by Tapash Shome, WP(C) 941/2016 filed by Ashish Karmakar, WP(C) 937/2016 filed by Uttam Kumar Debbarma, WP(C)935/2016 filed by Ratan Chakraborty, and WP(C)942/2016 filed by Tangosouh Rai Reang stands dismissed since they are not covered by memo dated 16.10.2007. 16. The writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of. No order as to costs.