Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N. Ramesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 August, 2024
APHC010120202021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 6896/2021
Between:
N. Ramesh ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P PADMAVATHI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI
2.
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
the following relief:
"....... issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus
nd
declaring the action of the 2 Respondent in issuing proceedings Estt/Pay bill Section/2020-
21, dated 20.02.2021 rejecting the request for release of retirement benefits of the Petitioner,
as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 300A of Constitution of India set aside the
proceedings dated 20.02.2021 and consequently direct the Respondents to release the
retirement benefits comprising of gratuity and leave encashment benefits along with interest
and pass ..."
2. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner has joined in service of
the Kurnool District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., (KDCC Bank), in the year
1987. Since the date of joining the service, he has discharged services
diligently and honestly without any blemish. Later, he was promoted as
Branch Manager to the KDCC Bank at Alur Branch in the year 2012. Since
then, he has been discharging his duties as Branch Manager at Alur Branch.
On 30.06.2020 the Petitioner has retired from the services and "No Due
Certificate" was also issued in his favour on 18.07.2020. On the date of
retirement, the Petitioner due to get all the retirement benefits including the
gratuity and leave encashment benefits. The 2nd Respondent has issued
proceedings Estt/Alur Branch/2020-2021, dated 26.10.2020, and directed the
Petitioner to attend Alur Branch to assist the Recovery Team, for identifying
the borrowers and also instructed to Recover the over dues covering the legal
action against the NIAs fixing responsibility on the Petitioner to identify the
borrowers. It is further stated that the Petitioner has forwarded representation
dated 11.11.2020 to the 2nd Respondent requesting to release the retirement
benefits at earliest. Though the petitioner has retired from services of the
Bank, he has expressed his willingness to co-operate with the recovery team
and to assist in identifying the borrowers, in the interest of the Bank.
Accordingly, the petitioner has requested the 2nd Respondent to pay a
reasonable amount of monthly honororium to the Petitioner to meet the
expenditure to render his assistance to the recovery team for the purpose.
Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent has issued a memo vide HRD payments/2021,
dated 12.01.2021, addressed to the Petitioner informed that, on the
completion of the task concerning recoveries and completion of legal actions
with regard to NPAs, by the Petitioner, then only, the retirement benefits will
be released to the Petitioner. Questioning the same, the present writ petition
has been filed.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. While denying
the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contented that submit that Para
9 &10 of the affidavit are concerned, the Branch Manager i.e the petitioner is
whole responsible to oversee the transactions held in the Branch as per
service regulations arrived between Management and employees and also the
employee is responsible to safeguard the interest of the depositor / customer.
I further submit that it is not true to say that the Chief Executive Officer of the
Bank i.e., 2nd respondent herein is responsible right from identifying the
borrower for sanctioning loan and allotment as per terms and conditions for
repayment of loans which are within the purview and powers of the Chief
Executive Officer of Bank. I submit that the Branch Managers only identify the
borrower, appraise and recommend to Head Office for legal scrutiny and
sanction. I submit that on the recommendation of the Branch Manager only
the sanction- cum-disbursement order would be considered for issue by Chief
Executive Officer of the Bank. So, all the loans which includes NPA accounts
in Alur Branch were considered for sanction on the recommendation of the
Branch Manager i.e the petitioner herein, the then Branch Manager, Alur. I
submit that regarding recoveries also, the Branch Managers are authorized to
cover the legal action on all over dues from time to time and as such, the
Branch Manager should take all steps for coverage of legal action immediately
after a account become overdue and the application should be brought to
Head Office for signatures of Chief Executive Officer for further course of
action. So, it is the primary duty of Branch Manager for initiation of Legal
Action. Without initiation from Branch, Chief Executive Officer alone cannot
initiate required process of recovery of loans. So, it is not correct to say that
Chief Executive Officer alone empowered to sanction the loans and to initiate
required process for the recovery of the loans.
I submit that this Hon'ble Court vide its interim order dated 07-04-2021 in IA
No.1 of 2021 in W.P. No.6896 of 2021 directed this respondent stating
directed to release 50% of the gratuity amount, which is payable to the
petitioner within a period of Six (6) Weeks. I submit that accordingly and in
compliance to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. the PIC Committee
of the Bank has authorized the CEO of the Bank vide its resolution No.9,
dt:26.04.2021 to pay 50% of the gratuity and for initiation of further course of
action in this regard. I submit that in compliance of the orders passed by this
Hon'ble Court the second respondent Bank has paid 50% of gratuity to a tune
of Rs.6,93,473/- as the eligible gratuity of Sri.N.Ramesh is of Rs.13,86,946/-&
credited the same to the S.B. A/c of the Petitioner on 28.04.2021 under
intimation to the Petitioner through the Lr. No.Estt./Pay bill section/Sri N.
Ramesh File/2021-22, dated 30-04-2021. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to dismiss the writ petition with costs in the interest of
Justice.
Heard Smt Padmavathi Padnavis, learned counsel appering fot he petitioner;
Smt. Sesha rajyam, learned Standing Cousnel for respondents nad Sri M
Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents
Hence, vide the aforesaid memo, a specific condition is imposed on the
petitioner by the 2nd Respondent for the purpose of release of retirement
benefits due to the petitioner. The Petitioner entitled to the retirement benefits
as an employee for the services rendered to the Bank and release of
retirement benefits is the Petitioner constitutional right.
It has no nexus with the debts dues or the NPAS and the Petitioner has
nothing to do with the recovery process. In the aforesaid memo dated
12.01.2021, it is stated that the NPA committee has resolved to withhold the
petitioner retirement benefits and to initiate action as per service regulations.
During the course of the petitioner service or after the petitioner retirement has
not been served with any notice or memo pertaining to NPAs and the
recoveries related to Alur Branch. Now, as the petitioner due to get the
retirement benefits, the petitioner have been served with this memo fixing
responsibility on the petitioner and imposing condition for release of retirement
benefits, which is arbitrary, illegal and violative Article 14, 21 & 300-A of the
Constitution of India. The 2nd Respondent has issued proceeding vide
Estt/Pay Bill Section/2021-22, dated 20.02.2021, it is stated in the
proceedings that the NPA Committee has advised to the 2nd respondent to fix
the responsibility on the petitioner for the recovery as well as legal action
coverage of over due loans. It is further stated that the NPA Committee has
further resolved not to release any dues to the Petitioner from the Bank, until
the Petitioner fulfil that the responsibility fixed upon me vide proceedings
dated 12.01.2021. Finally it is stated in the proceedings dated 20.02.2021 that
as the Petitioner failed to attend collection work, the Petitioner request for
release of the Petitioner retirement benefits is not considered. In the
proceedings issued by the 2 ^ (nd) Respondent dated 20.02.2021 no mention
was made with regard to the service regulations or other rules, basing on
which the responsibility was fixed up on the Petitioner, after the Petitioner
retirement. As per the procedure stipulated concerning the loan transactions,
right from identifying the borrowers for sanctioning of the loans and allotment
of loans stipulating the terms and conditions for repayment of the loans, are
within the exclusive purview and the powers of the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd
Respondent alone is empowered to sanction the loans and to initiate required
process for the recovery of the loans through the process of the law. During
the petitioner tenure as branch manager, the Petitioner have discharged the
Petitioner duties as per the instructions and permissions granted by the 2nd
Respondent in this regard. However, the 2nd Respondent and the NPA
committee referred to in his proceedings, has cost burden on the petitioner
and fixed responsibility on the petitioner with regard to the recovery process,
which is arbitrary, and is not tenable.
In number of Judicial pronouncements the Hon'ble Apex Court and different
High courts have persistently ruled that withholding of retirement benefits is
contrary to the mandate of Article 21 of Constitution of India. In a land mark
Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Uma Agarwal Vs State of U.P.
reported in 1999 (3) SCC, the Apex Court has reiterated the settled Principle
of Law that "Retirement benefits are not bounty to be given to the employees
after retirement. It is the right of the employee to get retiral benefits". In a very
recent Judgment rendered in Hiralal Vs The State of Bihar reported in 2020
(4) SCC 346, the Apex Court has made the following categorical observation.
"Grant of Retirement Benefits is not a matter of grace depending upon the
sweet will of the employee. Release of pensionary benefits is the payment for
the past services rendered." Keeping the well-settled Principle of Law in view,
the Respondents are not entitled to impose conditions for release of
retirement benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner being subjected to severe
financial crisis past retirement, and the Petitioner unable to perform the
Petitioner daughter's marriage, and unable to bear the necessary medical
expenditure for the treatment of the Petitioner wife.
.
