Disposed

M.J.Jayaram, v. Dharmavaram Cooperative Town Bank

Telangana HC1 Jul 2013WP/19963/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition involving retirement benefits and service protection in a cooperative bank, holding that an interim order extended until retirement and directing the bank to reserve benefits.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order and notice; direct respondents to pay all retirement benefits to the first petitioner after his retirement as per rules.

M.J.Jayaram, Vs Dharmavaram Cooperative… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.19963 OF 2004 Dated 01-07-2013

¶2

Between:

¶3

M.J.Jayaram and another.

¶4

…Petitioners.

¶5

And:

¶6

Dharmavaram Co-operative Town Bank, represented by its President, Dharmavaram Town, Anantapur District and another.

¶7

Respondents.

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.19963 OF 2004

¶9

O R D E R:

¶10

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings dated 4-8-2004 informing that the services of the petitioners will be terminated with effect from 4-112004 from the posts of Attenders in Dharmavaram Cooperative Town Bank, as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and to continue the petitioners in service.

¶11

2. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.

¶12

3. Section 116-C(1) of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act 7 of 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) reads as follows:

¶13

“A society shall have power to fix staffing pattern, qualifications, pay scales and other Allowances of its employees with the prior approval of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies subject to the condition that the expenditure towards pay and allowances of the employees shall not exceed 2% of the working capital or 30% of the Gross Profit in terms of actuals in a year whichever is less.”

¶14

4. This Sub Section was substituted by way of amendment Act 22 of 2001 and the management of the

¶15

Dharmavaram Cooperative Town Bank Limited, Dharmavaram submitted proposals under Section 116-C of the Act for approval of staffing pattern and salaries to said this office from 3-11-2004 for the years from 2001-2002 to 2004-2005.

¶16

5. It appears that the 2^nd respondent has issued notice to the Managing Committee of the Bank to take steps for removal of the staff. Under these circumstances, the impugned proceedings were issued to the petitioners stating that their services would be terminated after three months from 4-8-2004.

¶17

6. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

¶18

7. This Court by its order dated 1-11-2004 granted status quo for a period of one month and subsequently, the interim order was extended from time to time till 29-3-2005. Today, this matter came up for admission and this writ petition was admitted. However, the respondent-bank continued the 1^st petitioner-M.J.Jayaram and the 2^nd petitioner N.Rushingappa as attender and watchman, respectively. The 2^nd writ petitioner N.Rushingappa voluntarily retired from service in the year, 2005 and was paid retirement benefits. The 1^st writ petitioner- M.J.Jayaram was promoted as Record Assistant in the year 2007 and he is being paid salary attached to the post of Record Assistant and he is also being paid yearly increments and he was due to retire on 31-8-2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. Then, the Secretary of the 1^st respondent issued a letter dated 8-5-20013 to the 1^st writ petitioner-M.J.Jayaram stating that the interim order was not extended and therefore, he cannot be continued in service.

¶19

8. In the above circumstances, the 1^st writ petitioner-M.J.Jayaram filed the application in

¶20

W.P.M.P.No.19738 of 2013 seeking to direct the respondents to continue him as Record Assistant in the 1^st respondent Bank till the date of retirement on 31-82013 and to direct the respondent-authorities for payment of retirement benefits on par with the 2^nd writ petitioner-N.Rushingappa.

¶21

9. It is clear that the bank has continued the 1^st writ petitioner-Jayaram in service and subsequently, promoted him as Record Assistant. At this stage, the question of terminating him as per notice dated 4-11-2004 does not arise. It is also submitted that the financial position of the Bank as on 4-8-2004 is low and subsequently, it was improved.

¶22

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is made clear that the interim order deemed to have extended till the date of retirement of the 1^st writ petitioner-Jayarram i.e., till 31-8-2013. Hence, the impugned order and the notice dated 4-112004 stands set aside.

¶23

11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pay all the retirement benefits to the 1^st writ petitioner-Jayaram after his retirement as per rules. No costs.

¶24

12. As a sequel to the disposal of this Writ Petition, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶25

______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Dated 01-07-2013. Note: Issue C.C. in three days. BO. Dvs.

¶26

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.19963 OF 2004 Dated 01-07-2013

¶28

Dvs

M.J.Jayaram, v. Dharmavaram Cooperative Town Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.J.Jayaram, v. Dharmavaram Cooperative Town Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.a.Koteswara Rao, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple and Sri Malleswara Swamy Vs The Commissioner, Government of a.P., Endowments

Mandati Jalapathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Changal Raju, Vs Mukesh Kumar Meena

Rallabai Chandrappa Vs C Narsimlu

The Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., Vs Honble Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer