Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ravella Mohan Rao vs The State Of A.P on 27 September, 2024
1
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.12495 of 2020
Between:
# Ravella Mohan Rao
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of A.P., Agriculture & Cooperation Department
Rep by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi at Amaravati, Guntur District & 3 others.
.... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 27.09.2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals
- Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment?
- Yes -
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+WRIT PETITION No.12495 of 2020
% 27.09.2024
Between:
# Ravella Mohan Rao
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of A.P., Agriculture & Cooperation Department
Rep by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi at Amaravati, Guntur District & 3 others.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K. Koutilya
Counsel for Respondents: Ms. P. Sudeepthi, AGP for Cooperation
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (1999) 3 SCC 666
2. (2014) 7 SCC 260
3
APHC010193602020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 12495/2020
Between:
Ravella Mohan Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K KOUTILYA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. RAVI KUMAR C
2. HANUMANTHA RAO BACHINA
3. .
4. GP FOR COOPERATION
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
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:
Level Category of CCBs based on retail or non institutional
deposits + total loans outstanding.
A B C D
(Above (Rs.500 (Rs.200 (Up to
Rs.1000 crores to crores to Rs.200
crores) 1000 500 crores)
crores) crores)
(GM & DGM)
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.752.62 crores
and it was placed under the category "B". Keeping in view of the business
volume of DCCB and as per MCR No.37, dated 14.06.2013 the Deputy
General Manager namely Sri J. Nageswara Raowas promoted as General
Manager on 17.6.2013. Consequently after the retirement of Sri J.
Nageswara Rao, the General Manager post was filled by Sri R.Mohan Rao
on 19.08.2013, and Sri B.Anjaiah on 11.04.2016, respectively Deputy
General Manager namely Sri J.Nageswara Rao was promoted as General
Manager on 17.06.2013. Consequently after the retirement of Sri
J.Nageswara Rao, the General Manager post was filled by Sri R.Mohan
Rao on 19.08.2013, and Sri B.Anjajah on 11.04.2016, respectively. It is
further stated that, for the employees, who put up the note for giving
promotions from DGM to GM on 17.06.2013, which is against the NABARD
and APCOB guidelines issued Warning memo by the President of the
Bank. The respondents have received a letter from Sri. P.V.Braham,
Executive Director, APCBA dt: 01.11.2013 and he stated in point No. 3 that
"Sri. R. Mohan Rao had been worked in the cadre of General Manager 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 Manager (Rtd) on
30.06.2013. Sri R.Mohan Rao was posted in the permanent vacancy.
Hence the question of interpretation/doubt should not have arisen to the
bank officials hence he is eligible." It is further stated that as per Mitra
Committee recommendations the BOM have been resolved the staff
strength in its meeting held on 11.08.2010 by that time the GM post is not
eligible as per business was 500 crores and bank has comes under 'C'
class bank in the audit classification of the bank, By Considering the
volume of the business it, crossed the 500 crores (at that time
752.62crores) and Bank has B.Class Bank in audit classification of the
bank and keeping in the view of the above, the bank has created the
General Manager post in the Bank and resolved by the BOM in its meeting
held on 14.06.2013. Again as per Instructions of APCOB the GM post was
withdrawn with effect from 11.08.2010 and resolved by the BOM in its
meeting held on 22.08.2017. The Created GM Post in the Bank on
14.06.2013 and promoted Sri. J. Nageswara Rao DGM as GM and
J.Nageawara Rao retired in July 2013 and promoted to Sri R.Mohan Rao,
DGM as GM of the Bank. When BOM has withdrawn the GM Post with
effect from 11.08.2010 and maintain the position as maintained on
11.08.2010 has advised by the high level committee recommendations
communicated by the APCOB. Therefore there are no grounds to allow the
writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same.
4. Heard Mr. K. Koutilya, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Ms.P. Sudeepthi, learned Assistant government Pleader for
Co-operation appearing for the respondents.
5. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while
reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, the
respondents No.2 and 3 ought to have seen that the 4th respondent 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 was 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. He
further submits that it was an existing post in the Bank and already held by
Sri J. Nageswara Rao , General Manager, who retired on 30.06.2013 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 but ultimately declared that the petitioner is eligible. Learned
counsel further submits that, in view of the letter of the 4 th respondent Bank
dated 01.11.2017 as per eligibility the petitioner was promoted as General
Manager, therefore the letter dated 18.4.2017 which the 2nd respondent
relied on for recovery of amount from the petitioner's retiral benefits is
wrongly interpreted without any application of mind though no such
directions were given to the 2nd respondent, therefore the respondents
No.2 and 3 are not entitled to recover any amount from retiral benefits of
the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel further submits that, the respondents No.2 and 3
ought to have seen that there is no specific provision under Prakasam
District Cooperative Central Bank service regulations to recover any
amount from the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner after his
retirement. In the absence of such provisions it must be held that the
respondent Bank had no legal authority to recover any amount from his
retiral benefits.
7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon the judgments reported in Bhagirathi Jena versus Board of
Directors, O.S.F.C. and others 1 and in another case reported in Dev
Prakash Tewari versus Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional
Service Board, Lucknow and others 2 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that even for recovery of any amount from his retiral benefits,
the employer is not empowered unless the rules are specifically provides to
do so. In the instant case, under the PDCC Bank service regulations no
such power is conferred on the 2nd respondent to recover any amount from
retiral benefits of the petitioner after his retirement and therefore the
impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the
counter affidavit, denied all the contents made by learned counsel for the
(1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 666
(2014) 7 Supreme Court Cases 260
petitioner. She submits that as per Mitra Committee recommendations the
BOM have been resolved the staff strength in its meeting held on
11.8.2010 by that time the GM post is not eligible as per business was 500
crores and bank has comes under 'C' class bank in the audit classification
of the bank. She further submits that as per instructions of APCOB the
GM post was withdrawn w.e.f 11.8.2010 and resolved by the BOM in its
meeting held on 22.8.32017. the created GM post in the Bank on
14.6.2013 and promoted Sri J. Nageswara Rao, DGM as GM of the Bank.
When the BOM has withdrawn the GM post w.e.f. 11.8.2010 and maintain
the position as maintained on 11.8.2010 has advised by the high level
committee recommendations communicated by APCOB. She further
submits that, on the request of Sri R.Mohan Rao through letter dated
27.12.2019 the then PIC/District Collector of the Bank also rejected the
request of Sri R.Mohan rao, DGM (retd.) shall not considered in view of the
115D of APCC Act 164 the competent authority is Board Of Management.
As per General Conditions, "The Management reserve right to recover the
excess amount from the salaries of the individual employee in installment,
if it is noticed that consequent on implementation of Agreement excess
amount due to discrepancies or erroneous have been paid to employee
covered under this Agreement and association are not raise any dispute on
this issue." Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits
that the bank has settled the all the retirement benefits to the petitioner. As
per the directions of APCOB & APCBA only the respondents reverted him
and as per Service Register Point No.31 the Bank recovered the Excess
amount drawn by the petitioner in the Cadre of General Manager and
hence the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs claimed by him. Therefore,
the Writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. On perusing the material, this Court observed that, it is an
admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as General Manager in the
2nd respondent Bank and he was retired from the service on attaining the
age of superannuation at the age 58 years as General Manager on
30.06.2013. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner was worked in the cadre of General Manager as the post
was already created/sanctioned in the Board Meeting as per the required
financial criteria of the Bank. It was also clearly established from the letter
of 4th respondent which was sent to the Chief Executive Officer. It is also
contention of the petitioner that the 2 nd respondent Bank is laible ot pay the
arrears of salary as per revised pay scales in between the period from
01.11.2012 to 30.11.2015 in the cadre of General Manger after deducting
the salary already paid in the cadre of Deputy General Manager, the
arrears towards gratuity, arrears towards leave salary, arrears towards
perks, and 8% officiating allowance as per Bank service regulations, since
the petitioner hold additional charge of a higher post i.e., Chief Executive
Officer for a period of 18months.
10. This Court further observed that, it was an existing post in the
Bank and already held by Sri J. Nageswara Rao, General Manager and the
petitioner was posted as General Manger in the permanent vacancy. It is
also noticed that the letter of the 4th respondent Bank, as per eligibility, the
petitioner was promoted as General Manger. Further, during his tenure,
the petitioner never committed any financial or other irregularities or if any
committed by the petitioner, while in service necessary action required to
be initiated by the Bank. But the petitioner never committed any financial
irregularities or committed any Civil or Criminal offences.
11. On hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels and on
perusing the entire material on record, it appears that there is no post of
General Manager. But whatever the reason, the respondent authorities
have appointed the petitioner as General Manger and accordingly whatever
the period he worked as General Manger, the entitlement of payments
were already given to the petitioner as stated by the respondents in their
counter affidavit. But with regard to excess amount drawn by the individual
as General Manager is recovered from his arrear amounts which have
been drawn in new pay scales as per the instructions communicated in the
letter dated 18.04.2017 of the 4th respondent, this Court feels that the 2nd
respondent has no power to recover any amount from his retiral benefits
after his retirement therefore the impugned proceedings are liable to be set
aside.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion and by following the
decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, this Court is
inclined to allow the writ petition by declaring the proceedings issued by the
2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned
proceedings in HRD/Pro/B.13/2017 dated 8.8.2017 issued by the 2 nd
respondent are herby set aside. Further, the respondents No.2 and 3 are
directed to pay the entire arrears towards retiral benefits payable to the
petitioner as General Manager, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 27 -09-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.12945 of 2020
Date : 27.09.2024
Gvl
