$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6246/2026 & CM APPLs. 30726-30727/2026 JITESH KUMAR KHATRI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. D. V. Khatri and Mr. Harshad Gupta, Advocates. versus THE DELHI STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Srivastava and Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocates for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 20.07.2026 1. The Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging (i) the order dated 6th September, 2025 whereby he was dismissed from service by Respondent No. 1, Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited,1 (ii) the appellate order dated 14th October, 2025 affirming the said dismissal, and (iii) the order dated 7th February, 2026 rejecting his review application. The Petitioner also seeks consequential reliefs of reinstatement in service with continuity of service, back wages and all consequential benefits. 2. At the very outset, Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, counsel for the Bank, submits that, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sunita Sharma vs. Delhi 1 “the Bank” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/07/2026 at 11:19:59 State Cooperative Bank Ltd.,2 has held that the Respondent Bank is not a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, and therefore service disputes against the Bank, are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. He submits that although the said judgement is under challenge before the Division Bench in LPA 384/2024, its operation has not been stayed. He further submits that the same view has also been taken by Coordinate Benches of this Court, including in Anand Prakash v. Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Anr.3 It is, therefore, contended that the Petitioner must avail the appropriate alternative remedy in accordance with law. 3. It is not in dispute that, as in the aforesaid decisions, the present petition also arises out of a service dispute between an employee and the Bank. 4. In view of the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench in Sunita Sharma, which continues to hold the field notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed along with pending applications. SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 20, 2026/hc 2 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1270 3 W.P.(C) 105/2010, decided on 20th April, 2011 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/07/2026 at 11:19:59