ORDER : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the impugned order passed in Review Application No.C0:06:CAP:2017 dated 03.12.2021 passed by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-J, and also impugned notice dated 21.02.2022 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-N, and consequently to direct the respondents not to take any action pursuant to the notice. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: Respondent No.5 filed an appeal before respondent No.2 seeking arrears of salary of Rs.19,168/- along with interest. Respondent No.2 has passed an interim order under Section 71(3) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act of 1959’) directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of salary excluding interest. The petitioner paid the arrears of salary payable to respondent No.5 through demand draft dated 21.03.2012. Respondent No. 5 filed execution application before respondent No.3 for implementation of the order passed by respondent No.2 for releasing arrears of salary. The petitioner filed a detailed objections to the execution petition clearly stating that, they have already paid the arrears of salary as per the order passed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 rejected the execution petition filed by respondent No.5 vide order dated 01.08.2016. Respondent No.5 has preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 against the order passed by respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal vide order dated 07.04.2017. Respondent No.5 preferred a review application before respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the review application vide order dated 03.12.2021 and directed the petitioner to pay the salary payable to respondent No.5 for the period during which he has discharged the duties. Respondent No.3 also issued a notice dated 25.01.2022 to the petitioner calling upon them to take a necessary action pursuant to the order passed by respondent No.4 dated 03.12.2021. The petitioner submitted detailed reply on 09.02.2022 to the notice of respondent No.3 stating that they have paid the arrears of salary to respondent No.5 for the period during which he has discharged the duties. The petitioner also issued an endorsement on 09.02.2022 to respondent No.5 stating that, they have already paid the arrears of salary. Respondent No3 has issued one more notice to the petitioner directing to payment of salary on 21.02.2022. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.4 in review application and notice, filed this writ petition. The petitioner also issued an endorsement on 09.02.2022 to respondent No.5 stating that, they have already paid the arrears of salary. Respondent No3 has issued one more notice to the petitioner directing to payment of salary on 21.02.2022. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.4 in review application and notice, filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.5, and also learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the order passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner has already paid the arrears of salary. He submits that the petitioner is not liable to pay any further arrears of salary as claimed by respondent No.5. The said aspect was not considered by respondent No.4, and committed an error in allowing the review application. He submits that the arrears of salary is claimed by respondent No.5 as he did not discharge his duty during the said period. The petitioner is not liable to pay the arrears of salary as claimed by respondent No.5. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that there was an interim order directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of salary. He submits that the petitioners have not paid the salary for having discharged the duty. He submits that respondent No.4 has rightly allowed the review application. Hence, the order passed by respondent No.4 is just and proper, and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.5 was an employee under the petitioner-Society. Respondent No.5 has raised a dispute before respondent No.2 at dispute No.DRB-2/MD-06/2009-10 seeking direction to pay the arrears of salary of Rs.19,168/- along with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of dispute till the actual payment. During the pendency of the dispute, respondent No.5 filed an interlocutory application under Section 71(3) Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Respondent No.2 allowed the said application vide order dated 27.12.2010 and directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of salary payable to respondent No.5 excluding the interest. During the pendency of the dispute, respondent No.5 filed an interlocutory application under Section 71(3) Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Respondent No.2 allowed the said application vide order dated 27.12.2010 and directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of salary payable to respondent No.5 excluding the interest. After the receipt of the order passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner had complied the order passed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.5 filed execution petition before respondent No.3 for executing the order dated 27.12.2010 passed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 issued a demand notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to pay arrears of Rs.2,40,390/-. Respondent No.3 rejected the execution application vide order dated 01.08.2016. Respondent No.5, aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal vide order dated 07.04.2017. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, preferred revision petition before respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the revision petition vide order dated 03.12.2021 and recorded a finding that there was an interim order passed directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of salary. Although the petitioner contend that respondent No.5 has not discharged the duty from 25.05.2009 to 22.12.2010, the petitioner has not produced any records to show that respondent No.5 has not discharged the duty from 25.05.2009 to 22.12.2010. The interim order was granted. Respondent No.5 issued a notice on 04.04.2009 calling upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of salary. The petitioner did not reply to the notice. Respondent No.4 considering the entire materials on record has rightly passed the impugned order. I do not find any error in the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.