The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent bank to forthwith consider sanctioning pension under the contributory pension scheme to the members of the petitioner socrety as per the Board Resolution dated 01 .02.2012 duly taking into consideration the consent given by them pursuant to Lr No. 12015-161 dated 2'1 .05.20'1 5 Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. A.DEEPTHI Counsel for the Sole Respondent: SRI S.SURENDER REDDY, SC FOR ADCCBL The Court made the following: ORDER -t HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA trIRIT PEIITIoN No. 15430 OF 2Ol7 ORDER: Petitioner - a registered socie[r claims to be working for the welfare of retired employees of respondent bank and also for their family members. It is stated, the members of the Society were on payrolls as on 01.02.2012 of the bank and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Pursuant to the representations made by various service unions to the erstwhile A. P. State Cooperative Bank Limited and the recommendations submitted by the sub-committee constituted by it, the Managing Committee had decided to extend 'Dehned Superannuation - Benefit Sheme' to all the regular employees of the bank to provide an incentive to the employees on the one hand and by active involvement and unsustained efforts of the staff of the bank to achieve the enhanced level of business on the other. Accordingly, MOU dated 04.ll.2Ol1 was entered into between the erstwhile A.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited and different service unions. The said Scheme was implemented by APCOB through SBI Life Insurance Company. In the Board meeting held with Associations on O1.O2.2012, it was resolved to accept all the recommendations for adoption by the DCC Banks uniformly, to communicate the Scheme to ail the DCC / 2 \. -- 1 Banks to place the same in their Board meeting to accept by a Resolution with effect from O\-O2'2O12' According to Draft Regulations, all the regular employees (dehned as person who has been appointed on regular basis by the DCC Bank on regular pay scale and borne on the rolls of the bank as on Ol.O2.2Ol2\ of DCC Banks on the payrolls as on Ol O2'2OI2 shall be eligible to be covered under the Scheme' It is stated, since petitioner members were on pay rolls of respondent bank as on 01.02.2O12, they are eligibie for the benefit under the contributory pension scheme- However, in the process of extending the benehts under such Scheme, the respondent bank uide resolution dated 20.03.2012 deferred the same for want of details in respect of hnancial commitments and other operational aspects and benehts that accrue to the employees; further an amount of Rs. 200 lacs was allocated under contingent charges for the purpose of Bank Employees' Pension Corpus Fund for the hnancial year 2015-16 and hnaily, after working out the financial iiability, entrusted the matter to the SBI Life Insurance, Hyderabad. The bank uide letter dated

21.05.2015 sought for consent from the eiigible employees for extension of scheme as was extended to the employees of other DCC Banks; accordingly, the members submitted consent J letters also. However, so far, the bank had not released the benefits for the reasons best known to it. According to petitioner, all the members of the Society are senior citizens and are eagerly waiting for the benefits of the above Scheme to meet their old age requirements. Hence, the Writ Petition.

2. In the counter, the Chief Executive Officer of respondent bank stated that APCOB Employees' Association had circulated letter dated 31.07.2013 wherein it was stated that employees group superannuation scheme was approvcd in the board meeting dated 0 1 .02. 2012 for implementation of pension scheme in DCCBs with the approval of IRDA; then the said Association was informed to coordinate with SBI Life Insurance Company. It is stated, in this regard, a draft resolution was also communicated for implementation of pension scheme narnely The DCCBs. Employees' Performance Incentive-cu{n-Contributory Superannuation Beneht Scheme' for those employees who were appointed on regular basis by DCC Bank and - payrolls of the bank as on cut-off date. Accordingly, the subject was placed before the Managing Committee meeting of the bank ot 2O.O3.2O12 but subject was deferred tiil obtaining all the details. Therefore, unless and until it is approved by the Managing Committee and General Body of 4 ., \ - the bank, the bank cannot implement the said Scheme as requested by petitioner. It is also stated that in the financial year 2015 16, a proposal was made for allocation of Rs. 20O lacs for bank employees' pension corpus fund but the said proposal was not accepted by the Board of Management of the bank, in the meanwhile, bank sought consent of eligible employees vide letter dated 21.05.2015, however, so many employees have not submitted their consent letters. Further, pension policy was lapsed, therefore, further correspondence was not made in regard to employer-employee share. It is finally stated that since the Board has deferred the subject, there is no question of implementation of pension scheme in the bank. 3 Petitioner hled reply opposing the averments in the counter. It is further stated that 48 out of 64 (excluding three members who expired and two members who are absconding) as on that date, submitted their consent letters to contribute their share of 3O%o of total assessed contributory amount as and when demanded by the bank with a fond hope that pension would be extended as was done in the case of the employees o[ other DCC banks as is evident from the letter dated 10.O4.2ola reccived under the RTI Act. Respondent is not justihed in saying -- 5 that the policy had lapsed and they cannot be implemented having extended the Scheme to the emplcyees of majority of banks. It is also stated, pending Writ Petition, detailed representation dated O2.O2.2021 was also made to the respondent bank to extend the Scheme as was extended to similar employees of the DCC Banks, but respondent bank paid deaf ear.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Societ5r Ms. A. Deepthi as also Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent bank who made their submissions in line with the averments made in their respective affidavtis. Ms. Deepthi placed reliance on the judgments of the

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India a. Munshi Rannl, M.L. Patil u. Ihe State of Goa2 and .lltls. X u. Registrar General" High Court of Madhga Prade9h3.

6. A perusal of the counter makes it clear that the subject was placed before the Managing Committee of the bank on 2O.O3.2O|2, but it was deferred tili obtaining all the details, therefore, unless and until it is approved by the Managing Committee and General Body of the bank, the bank cannot I 2022 SCC Onlinc SC I493 2 Civil Appeal No. 4 100 of2022 ' (2022) 14 SCC r87 6 .-i \ implement the said Scheme as requested by petitioner. Further, for the hnancial year 2015-16, a proposal was made for allocation of Rs. 200 lacs for bank employees' pension corpus fund but the said proposal was not accepted by the Board of Management of the bank. Though bank sought consent of eligible employees uide letter dated 2 1 .O5.2O 15, so many have no[ submitted their consent letters. In the meanwhile, pension policy was lapsed, therefore, further correspondence was not made in regard to employer-employee share. On the other hand, petitioner's case is that respondent is not justihed in saying that the policy had lapsed and it calnot be implemented having extended [he Scheme to the employees of majority of banks.

7. In this scenario, pertinent to note the well-settled law [hat Courts should be very wary about interfering with policy decisions, particularly involving financial impiications. Since the Managing Committee in its meeting on 2O.O3.2O12 deferred the subjebt till obtaining all the details, and thereafter, it was not approved by the said Committee and also General Body of the bank, and since it is stated that the policy had lapsed, this Court cannot direct the respondent bank to implement the Scheme now. ln that view of the matter, the ju{gments relied on by learned counsel for petitioner shal1 not 1 be made applicable to the facts and circumstances o[ the case- Petitioner Society is therefore, not liable to be granted the relief sought. At the most, feels it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to direct the respondent bank to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 02.O2.2021 said to have been submitted by the petitioner SocieQz to the President of the respondent bank.

8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed' However, it is directed that the President, ADCC Bank Ltd., Adilabad shall take a decision on the representation dated O2.O2.2O21 and communicate the same to petitioner Sociefy, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ol this order. No costs. g. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

1. The President, Adilabad Adilabad. SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY S TANT REGISTRAR I I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Distrrct Central CooPerative (ADCC) Bank Ltd ,

2. One CC to Ms' A DEEPTHI' Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRI S'SURENDER REDDY' SC FOR ADCCBL [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies To, M. BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 i ) ORDER WP.No.15430 of 2017 :r J o (.) t Y * H1 r€ 25 Jljt'l ,'j-S n a.T Cf s.:- i1:) 'r DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS t, l,D 6 v\