IMPORTANT POINT
An employer cannot recover amounts from retiral benefits unless explicitly authorized by service regulations.

ORDER :

(K. Manmadha Rao, J.) :

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief :

“…..to issue a Writ Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings in HRD/Pro/B-13/2017, dated 08.08.2017 issued by the 2nd Respondent as illegal arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice without jurisdiction and violative of the property rights as guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution of India consequently set aside the impugned proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 08.08.2017 with a direction to the Respondents 2 and 3 to pay the entire arrears towards retiral benefits payable to the Petitioner as General Manager with interest throughout and pass….”

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Manager in PDCC Bank Ongole on 10.09.1984, promoted as Assistant General Manager on 27.3.1999 and further promoted as Deputy General Manager on 18.09.2007. While so, the 2nd respondent Bank has approved the draft service regulations in terms of the decision taken by A.P. Cooperative Banks Association (APCOBA) and therefore the revised service regulations of the Prakasam District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd came into operation w.e.f. September 2012 onwards. Since the date of the appointment, the petitioner is discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction and he has also discharged functions as Chief Executive Officer (FAC) for nearly 18 months and he was granted additional allowances and perks as indicated in resolution No.9 dated 9.6.2015. Later the petitioner was retired from service on attaining superannuation of 58 years, on 30.11.2015 vide proceedings in HRD/F.No.181/B-13/2015 dated 30.11.2015 issued by the then President of the 2nd respondent Bank. While so, to the utter surprise, the Chief Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent Bank issued the present impugned proceedings dated 08.08.2017 for recovery of amount from the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner while relying upon the letter No.20/APCBA/2017, dated 18.04.2017 issued by the Executive Director of the 4th respondent, wherein it is observed that where the Bank is not eligible to continue the General Manager post as per NABARD guidelines such General Manager is not eligible for the benefits of the agreement. It is further stated that the 4th respondent has sent a letter No.APCBA/37/2017, dated 01.11.2017 to the Chief Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent Bank and pointed out that the petitioner worked in the cadre of General Manger as the post was already created/ sanctioned in the Board Meeting as per the required financial criteria of the Bank. It was an existing post in the Bank and already held by Sri J.Nageswara Rao, General Manger, who retired on 30.6.2013 and the petitioner was posted as General Manager in the permanent vacancy hence the question of interpretation should not have arisen to the Bank officials and ultimately declared that the petitioner is eligible. In view of the said letter, dated 01.11.2017 as per his eligibility, the petitioner was promoted as General Manager. But the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 08.08.2017 for recovery of retiral benefits payable to be petitioner, is highly illegal and arbitrary.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No.2 and 3. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, as per the Mitra Committee recommendations, in the staffing pattern in CCBs Head office , the Senior Management (GM&DGM) is mentioned as under:

It is further stated that, as seen from the financial position of the Bank as on 31.3.2012, the total business turnover was Rs.752.6