The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Pensioners Association & Ors.

1.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Pensioners Association Rep.by General Secretary Now at 13/4, PSV Koil Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.2.M.Sankara Subramanian3.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Contributory Superannuation Scheme Rep.by the General Manager (Administration) Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001.4.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.5.The Life Insurance Corporation of India Rep. by its Divisional Manager (P & GS) 102, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002..Respondents/Petitioners and Respondents 2 to 4PRAYER: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe order dated 13.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.36632 of 2006. Presentedunder Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ ofMandamus directing the respondents to pay pension to the retiredemployees listed in Annexure I and II with arrears together withinterest at 18%.For Appellant :Mr.Vijay Narayan Senior counsel for Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondents-1 &2:Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for Mr.Arumugam For Respondent-4 :Mr.WilsonAdditional Advocate General For Respondent-5 :Mr.P.Saravanan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.A.NO.1393 OF 2008The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd.,Rep. by its Special Officer / Managing Director No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. ..Appellant/1st Respondentversus1.J.J.Mohan2.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Superannuation Trust Fund No.4, Old No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001.3.Secretary to Government Cooperation Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009..Respondents/Petitionerand Respondents 2 & 3PRAYER: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe order dated 13.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.46318 of 2006. Presentedunder Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ ofMandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay pension to thepetitioner with arrears together with interest at 18% per annum.For Appellant :Mr.Vijay Narayan Senior counsel for Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondent-1 :Mr.S.J.JagadevFor Respondent-3:Mr.WilsonAdditional Advocate General W.A.NO.111 OF 2009The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Pensioners AssociationRep.by General Secretary13/4, PSV Koil Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ..Appellant /Petitionerversus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Special Officer / Managing Director No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. 2.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Contributory Superannuation Scheme Rep.by the General Manager (Administration) Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001.3.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Union No.4, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001.4.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Officers Association (Regn.No.2101/MDS) Rep. by its General Secretary No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001...RespondentsPRAYER: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe order dated 13.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.27318 of 2004, in so farin rejecting the claim for pension to the extent of 5% by grantingat 20% instead of 25% to the retired employees of 1st respondent /TNSC Bank. For Appellant :Mr.N.G.R.Prasadfor Mr.Arumugam For Respondent-1:Mr.Vijay NarayanSenior counsel for Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondent-3 :Mr.R.Sivakumar For Respondent -4:Mr.G.Nagarajan W.A.NO.112 OF 20091.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Pensioners Association Rep.by General Secretary 13/4, PSV Koil Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.M.Sankarasubramanian ..Appellants /Petitionerversus1.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Special Officer / Managing Director No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. 2.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Contributory Superannuation Scheme Rep.by the General Manager (Administration) Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001.3.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Dept. Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.4.The Life Insurance Corporation of India Rep. by its Divisional Manager (P & GS) 102, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002...Respondents/RespondentsPRAYER: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe order dated 13.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.36632 of 2004, in so farin rejecting the claim for pension to the extent of 5% by grantingat 20% instead of 25% to the retired employees of 1st respondent /TNSC Bank. For Appellant -1:Mr.N.G.R.Prasadfor Mr.Arumugam For Respondent-1:Mr.Vijay NarayanSenior counsel for Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondent-3 :Mr.WilsonAdditional Advocate General For Respondent-4:Mr.P.Saravanan W.A.NO.253 OF 2009G.Selvarangan ..Appellant /Petitionerversus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Special OfficerTamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd.,Head Office,Chennai – 600 001...Respondent/RespondentPRAYER: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe order dated 13.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.4043 of 2005. For Appellant :Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar For Respondent:Mr.Vijay NarayanSenior counsel for Mr.P.Anbarasan W.A.NO.1228 OF 2009J.J.Mohan ..Appellant /Petitionerversus1.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Special Officer / Managing Director No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. 2.The Trustee The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Superannuation Trust Fund No.4 (Old No.233), N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001.3.The Secretary to Government Co-operation Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009...Respondents/RespondentsPRAYER: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe order dated 13.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.46318 of 2006. For Appellant :Mr.S.J.Jagadev For Respondent-1:Mr.Vijay NarayanSenior counsel for Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondent-3 :Mr.WilsonAdditional Advocate General COMMON JUDGMENTD.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.The common question that arises for consideration in theseappeals is whether the learned single Judge is correct in directingthe Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank to pay 20% of last drawn https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ salary as pension to its retired employees. 2.The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are asfollows:(a) The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Limited(shortly "the Bank") is a Co-operative Society registered under theTamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The District Central Co-operative Banks are its Members. The Government of Tamil Nadu alsoowns substantial shares. There are no private individual members inthe Co-operative Society. The Bank has been running profitably. (b) While so, a settlement under Section 12(3) of theIndustrial Disputes Act (in short "the Act") was entered intobetween the Bank and the Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative BankEmployees Union (shortly "the Union") on 29.05.1991. ContributorySuperannuation Pension Scheme (in short "the Scheme") was introducedwith effect from 01.01.1991 under Clause F.2 (c) of the settlement.Clause F.2 (c) of the memorandum of settlement reads as follows:"F.2 (c) Pension Scheme:It is mutually agreed that additionalcontribution at 2.5% of Basic Pay and D.A will bemade to the Employees' Provident Fund by both theemployees and employer with effect from 1.1.1991for the purpose of Pension Scheme. Further, it is mutually agreed that a suitablePension Scheme will be evolved after detaileddiscussions. It is also agreed that no loan facilityagainst this additional 2.5% P.F. contributionswill be sanctioned." (c) Though contributions were recovered from the employeespursuant to the settlement at the rate of 2.5% of Basic pay and D.Afrom 01.01.1991 and the Bank also paid matching contributions, thesettlement was not implemented and pension was not paid. (d) Subsequently, another settlement under Section 12(3)of the Act on pension was entered into between the Bank and theUnion on 24.10.1996. (e) The Bank also entered into a settlement with the TamilNadu State Apex Coop. Bank Officers' Association on 08.12.1996, inrespect of pension on similar terms, as contained in the settlement https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 24.10.1996.(f) Clause G-3 of the settlement dated 24.10.1996 providesfor pension, which reads as follows: "G-3 STAFF CONTRIBUTORY PENSION SCHEME 1996:It is mutually agreed that the existingContributory Superannuation Scheme will getmodified to the extent necessary so as to extendpensionary benefits to the staff, effective from1.1.1991, as provided for in the "ContributoryPension Scheme" and detailed in the Annexureenclosed to this Settlement."(g) The annexure to the settlement contains the details ofthe Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees ContributoryPension Scheme (shortly "the Pension Scheme"). (h)The Pension Scheme provides for contribution at therate of 2.5% of Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance from each monthfrom the date of entry into the Bank up to 31.12.1990 andthereafter, from the employees and the matching contributions fromthe Bank. (i)As per the Scheme, Pension Corpus would be linked toLIC of India. (j) As per Clause 5 of the Scheme, the Bank agreed tocontribute each year commencing from 01.01.1996 such sums that arerequired in keeping the Pension Corpus with sufficient resources topay pension for all the eligible employees under the Scheme. (k) The Bank also framed Regulations, namely, the TamilNadu State Apex Coop. Bank Employees' Pension Scheme Regulations,1996. Regulation 20(i) in Chapter – IV is relevant for this caseand the same is extracted hereunder:"20. i) Basic Pension will be fifty percent ofthe average emoluments i.e. average of pay drawn byan employee during the last 10 months of hisservice as per Rugulation 20 (ii)."(l) The General Body of the Bank on 29.01.1997 approvedthe allocation of Rs.10 Crores to the Pension Corpus out of theprofits earned during 1995-1996, in compliance with the settlementreferred to above. The same was sent to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for administrative approval. The allocation ofRs.10 Crores from and out of the profit of the Bank, without the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ approval of the Government, was objected by the auditors and hence,pending approval of the Government, the same was kept as un-disbursed profit. Thus, the amount did not reach the PensionCorpus. (m) In those circumstances, the Bank was not able to paypension as agreed to in the settlement. On the other hand, the Bankpaid adhoc pension at the rate of 25% of last drawn wages, while theScheme provides for 50% of the last drawn wages. That is, 50% ofthe pension was paid. That too, the adhoc pension was paid from01.01.1997 only to those who retired after 01.01.1991, instead offrom 01.01.1991, as per the settlement.(n)The LIC of India administered warning to the Bank forresorting to adhocism. The LIC of India advised that wheneveremployees retire from the service of the Bank, their contributionwith accumulation of interest would be drawn from the fund andannuities would be purchased based on eligible pension and that anyshortfall could be made good from the Corpus fund. Instead of doingthe same, the Bank resorted to withdrawing amounts from the Corpusfund for payment of adhoc pension. (o)The Bank was forced to give adhoc pension only, sincethe Bank was not able to transfer the sum of Rs.10 Crores allocatedto Pension Corpus fund as the Government was yet to approve thesame. (p) Since the adhoc pension was paid to the retiredemployees from the contributions alone, the serving employees wereapprehensive that the contributions made by them got eroded andthere would be no amount to pay pension to them at the time of theirretirement. In order to safeguard the interest of the servingmembers, the Bank kept aside a sum of Rs.13.88 Crores from and outof the total Pension Corpus fund of Rs.22.02 Crores available withLIC of India. (q)While 121 employees, who retired after 01.01.1991, werepaid adhoc pension at the rate of 25% of last drawn wages from01.01.1997, the employees retired after June 2003, were not paideven this adhoc pension. 3.The aforesaid facts led to the filing of writ petitionin W.P.No.27318 of 2004 by the Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operativeBank Pensioners' Association for a direction to the Bank for paymentof pension to 20 employees, who retired after June 2003, withinterest at 18%. 4.While pension was sought for 20 persons who retired https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ after June 2003, even the adhoc pension paid to 121 employees wasstopped from April 2005.5.This led to the filing of another writ petition inW.P.No.36632 of 2006 by the Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative BankPensioners' Association along with one of its Members, seekingdirection to the Bank to pay pension to all the retired employees,as per the Scheme. 6.Some of the retirees also individually filed writpetitions and those writ petitions are W.P.No.4343 of 2005 and 46318of 2006.7.In those circumstances, an interim order was passed on21.04.2006 in W.P.M.P.No.33227 of 2004 in W.P.No.27318 of 2004directing the Bank to pay 15% of the due pension from April 2006 andthe same was continued till the writ petition was disposed. 8.While the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.27318 of 2004confined to 20 persons, the writ petition in W.P.No.36632 of 2006relates to 159 retirees, as the pension was stopped to all theretirees after April 2005. An interim order was passed on 28.09.2006in M.P.No.2 of 2006 in W.P.No.36632 of 2006 directing the Bank topay 15% of the pension due pending disposal of the writ petition.9.It is an admitted fact that the appellant repeatedlywrote letters to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies requestinghim to seek approval of the Government for the transfer of Rs.10Crores that was allocated in January 1997 itself to the PensionCorpus. But the same was not successful.10.When all those writ petitions came up for final hearingduring December 2006, after hearing the submissions made by all theparties, this Court appointed 15 Members Committee, inclusive ofrepresentative of the writ petitioner Association, the Bank, andother respondents and the Committee was directed to find outworkable solution. 11.The Additional Secretary to Government, Co-operation,Food and Consumer Protection Department was the convenor of theCommittee, who held several meetings and submitted a report. Whilethe employees/retirees demanded pension ranging from 25 to 35% ofthe last drawn salary in lieu of 50% as originally provided in the12(3) settlement, the Bank agreed to pay only 17.5%. Since there wasno consensus, the convenor of the Committee was constrained to fileno consensus report. 12.Hence, the learned single Judge framed the followingissue for consideration for disposal of those writ petitions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "The point falling for consideration is that"What could be the quantum of the pension payableto the employees by the 1st Respondent Bank? andWhether it is 25% as demanded by the employees orat 17.5% as agreed by the 1st Respondent BankManagement."13.The Bank also questioned the very maintainability ofthose writ petitions and the same was also considered. 14.The learned Judge disposed all the writ petitions viz.,W.P.Nos.27318 of 2004, 36632 of 2006, 4043 of 2005 and 46318 of 2006by a common order dated 13.10.2008 with the following directions:"41.In the result, W.P.Nos.27318/2004 and36632/2006 are partly allowed with the followingdirections:-●First Respondent Bank shall pay 20% of lastdrawn salary as pension to the retiredemployees.●Pension shall be paid to all the retiredemployees at the rate of 20% commencingfrom October 2008 (payable on 1st November2008).●Arrears shall be payable to all the retiredemployees in five monthly instalments. Itis made clear that no interest is payableon the arrears of pension payable to theretired employees.●First instalment of arrears of pensionshall be payable from 01.12.2008.●As stated in its letter dated 12.07.2007,first Respondent Bank shall transferRs.23.73 Crores to Pension Corpus Fund ofthe bank maintained with LIC in eightannual instalments. First instalment shallcommence from the financial year 2008-2009."42.W.P.Nos.4043/2005 & 46318/2006:- In theline of the above directions, both the WritPetitions are disposed of.After orders was passed, submissions were maderegarding 25% of pension already paid.Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitionerhas submitted that pension at the rate of 25% https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ already paid may not be recovered nor be adjusted.In support of his contention, learned counsel forthe Petitioner placed reliance upon (2002) 3 SCC302 (State of Karnataka and another v. MangaloreUniversity Non-Teaching Employees' Association andothers). Learned counsel for the 1st respondent wouldsubmit that since Court has passed the orderdirecting payment of pension at the rate of 20%,necessarily excess of pension paid has to berecovered. In view of the decision (2002) 3 SCC 302(State of Karnataka and another v. MangaloreUniversity Non-Teaching Employees' Association andothers), 1st Respondent Bank may not recover noradjust excess 5% which was already paid to thegroup of employees/retirees."15.The crux of the directions is that the Bank wasdirected to pay 20% of last drawn salary as pension to the retiredemployees from October 2008 payable from 01.11.2008. The learnedJudge negatived the contention as to the maintainability of the writpetitions, raised by the Bank. 16.Against the common order dated 13.10.2008 passed by thelearned Judge in the batch of writ petitions, the Bank has preferredappeals in W.A.Nos.1390 to 1393 of 2008 against all the commonorders passed in the batch of writ petitions and the PensionersAssociation has preferred appeals in W.A.Nos.111 and 112 of 2009against the order passed in W.P.Nos.27318 of 2004 and 36632 of 2006respectively and W.A.No.1228 of 2009 is preferred against the orderpassed in W.P.No.46318 of 2006 and W.A.No.253 of 2009 is preferredagainst the order passed in in W.P.4043 of 2005. 17.We have heard the submissions made on either side andperused the materials available on record. 18.The learned senior counsel for the appellant – Banksubmitted as follows:a) The learned Judge erred in holding thatwrit petitions are maintainable against theappellant – Bank, while the appellant – Bank is aCo-operative Society, registered under the TamilNadu Co-operative Societies Act. It is not Stateunder Article 12 of the Constitution. Hence, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ writ petitions under Article 226 of theConstitution are not maintainable against theappellant - Bank. In this regard, the seniorcounsel relies on the larger Bench judgment of thisCourt in K.MARAPPAN VS. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OFCO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES reported in 2006 (4) CTC689.b) The retirees seek to enforce the 12(3)settlement by filing writ petitions under Article226 of the Constitution. This is not permissible astheir remedy lies elsewhere. In this regard, herelies on a Division Bench judgment of this Courtin MADRAS LABOUR UNION VS. BINNY LTD., reported in1995 (1) LLJ 588. The learned senior counselfurther submitted that though the learned Judge hasagreed with the proposition laid down in the saidjudgment, the learned Judge erred in entertainingthose writ petitions. c) The learned Judge ought not to haveentertained the writ petitions, when the retireeshave effective alternative remedy under theIndustrial Disputes Act and when remedies areavailable under the Industrial Disputes Act, theretirees ought not to have approached this Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution. In thisregard, reliance is placed on the judgment of theHonourable Apex Court in RAJASTHAN STATE ROADTRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS. KRISHNA KANTAND OTHERS reported in (1995) 5 SCC 75 and aDivision Bench judgment of this Court in INDIANADDITIVES EMPLOYEES' UNION VS. INDIAN ADDITIVESLTD., reported in 2005 (1) CTC 1.d) The learned Judge should not have fixed thequantum of compensation, as it involves disputedquestions of facts. 19.The learned Additional Advocate General representingthe Government also submitted that the writ petitions ought to havebeen dismissed as not maintainable, in view of the larger Benchjudgment of this Court in K.Marappan's case (cited supra). 20.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing forthe Pensioners Association and the retirees, seek to sustain theorder of the learned Judge and their grievance is that the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Judge ought to have fixed the quantum of compensation at 50% of thedue pension payable under the Act. The learned Judge ought to havefixed the quantum of compensation at the rate of 25% of last drawnwages, instead at 20%. 21.I have considered the submissions made on either side.From the submissions made on either side, the following two issuesare arises for consideration in these appeals:(i) Whether the writ petitions relating topayment of pension are maintainable.(ii) Whether the learned Judge was correct infixing the quantum of compensation at the rate of20% of the last drawn wages, when the fixation ofpension involves disputed questions of fact. 22.There is no dispute that the appellant bank is a Co-operative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operativeSocieties Act and not State under Article 12 of the Constitution.The larger Bench of this Court has held in K.Marappan's case (citedsupra) that normally writ petition is not maintainable against Co-operative Societies. The following are the proposition laid down bythe larger Bench of this Court in K.Marappan's case (cited supra):"21.From the above discussion, the followingpropositions emerge:(i) If a particular co-operative society canbe characterised as a "State" within the meaning ofArticle 12 of the Constitution (applying the testsevolved by the Supreme Court in that behalf), itwould also be "an authority" within the meaning andfor the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution.In such a situation, an order passed by a societyin violation of the bye-laws can be corrected byway of Writ Petition;(ii) Applying the tests in Ajay Hasia it isheld that a co-operative society carrying onbanking business cannot be termed as aninstrumentality of the State within the meaning ofArticle 12 of the Constitution;(iii) Even if a society cannot becharacterised as a "State" within the meaning ofArticle 12 of the Constitution, a Writ would lieagainst it to enforce a statutory public duty cast https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ upon the society. In such a case, it is unnecessaryto go into the question whether the society isbeing treated as a "person" or "an authority"within the meaning of Article 226 of theConstitution and what is material is the nature ofthe statutory duty placed upon it and the Courtwill enforce such statutory public duty. Althoughit is not easy to define what a public function orpublic duty is, it can reasonably said that suchfunctions are similar to or closely related tothose performable by the State in its sovereigncapacity. (iv) A society, which is not a "State" wouldnot normally be amenable to the writ jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution, but incertain circumstances, a writ may issue to suchprivate bodies or persons as there may be statutoryprovisions which need to be complied with by allconcerned including societies. If they violatesuch statutory provisions a writ would be issuedfor compliance of those provisions. (v) Where a Special Officer is appointed inrespect of a co-operative society which cannot becharacterised as a "State" a writ would lie whenthe case falls under Clauses (iii) and (iv) above. (vi) The bye-laws made by a co-operativesociety registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 do not have the forceof law. Hence, where a society cannot becharacterised as a "State", the service conditionsof its employees governed by its bye-laws cannot beenforced through a Writ Petition. (vii) In the absence of special circumstances,the Court will not ordinarily exercise power underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India when theAct provides for an alternative remedy. (viii) The decision in M.Thanikkachalam V.Madhuranthagam Agricultural Co-operative Society,2000 (4) CTC 556, is no longer good law, in view ofthe decision of the Seven-Judge Bench of theSupreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas case and theother decisions referred to here before." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore, it has to be tested whether the learned Judge was correctin entertaining the writ petitions in the light of the law laid downby the larger Bench of this Court in the judgment cited supra. 23.In our considered view, the learned Judge entertainedthe writ petitions, taking into account the special circumstances ofthe case. The larger Bench of this Court has categorically held asthe 7th proposition that when special circumstances exists, thisCourt could exercise its power under Article 226 of theConstitution, though statutes provide for alternative remedy. Thelearned Judge was conscious of the fact that normally writ petitionis not maintainable against the Co-operative Society. The specialcircumstances that made the learned Judge to entertain the writpetitions are stated in paragraph Nos.10 and 14 of the judgement andthe same are extracted hereunder:"10.Though, it is the implementation of termsof bipartite agreement, having regard to theinterest of retired employees of 1st RespondentBank, High Court has seized up the matter. Toexamiine the viability of pension scheme, 15 membercommittee was constituted. Meeting convened by theAdditional Secretary to Government, Co-operativeFood and Consumer Protection Department was held onseveral occasions ranging from January 2002 toSeptember 2008. The Convenor has submitted anelaborate report. The Court has already passed aninterim order directing payment of interim pensionat the rate of 15% of last drawn salary. .......14.Though, function of 1st Respondent Bankcannot be termed as similar or close, thusperformable by the State, Government do have it sayin issuing directions to the 1st Respondent Bank.When the High Court has dealt with the matter forquite some time, Writ Petitions cannot be dismissedas not maintainable. At this distant point oftime, it would not be appropriate to direct theparties to seek remedy before the Labour Court.The objection raised as to the maintainability ofthe Writ Petitions cannot be countenanced."24.In order to decide the issue, it is necessary to lookinto the circumstances that led to the filing of the writ petitions.The appellant - Bank entered into settlement under Section 12(3) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act on 29.05.1991 providing pension asthird benefit, apart from gratuity and PF benefits. As per this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ settlement, the pension has to be paid for the employees, who retireafter 01.01.1991. The settlement also provides for contributionfrom the employees at the rate of 2.5% of Basic Pay and DearnessAllowance from 01.01.1991 and the matching contribution from theBank, in order to pay pension from and out of the aforesaidcontributions. Accordingly, contributions were made. Soonthereafter, it was felt that the said contributions could not besufficient to pay pension. 25.In these circumstances, another settlement dated24.10.1996 was entered into between the appellant – Bank and theEmployees Union, providing Pension Scheme. As per this Scheme,contributions have to be made to the pension fund at the rate of2.5% of Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance from the date of enteringinto service and the appellant - Bank also has to pay matchingcontribution, instead of from 01.01.1991, as decided in the earliersettlement. The appellant - Bank was also conscious that even thiscontribution from the date of entry into service could not meet therequirement of payment of pension as provided for under the pensionscheme. Hence, in clause 5 of the Pension Scheme, the appellant -Bank agreed to contribute each year commencing from 01.01.1996 suchsums that are required in keeping the Pension Corpus with sufficientresources to pay pension. In this regard, clause (5) of the PensionScheme, is extracted hereunder, as it is relevant to decide theissue involved in this case. "5.All employees of the Bank will henceforthcontribute towards Pension Corpus 2.5% of the Payand Dearness Allowance and the Management will alsopay an equal sum towards the corpus every month.The Pension Corpus will be duly linked to the LICof India and appropriate authority will be obtainedfor the appropriate administration of the scheme.The Bank further agrees to contribute each yearcommencing from 1.1.1996 such sums that arerequired in keeping the Pension Corpus withsufficient resources to pay pension for all theeligible employees under this scheme and as isbeing required by LIC of India, in this behalf."26.In terms of clause 5 of the Pension Scheme, referred toabove, the appellant - Bank allocated Rs.10 Crores to the PensionCorpus, out of the profits earned during 1995-1996. The allocationwas duly approved by the General Body of the Bank on 29.01.1997. Thesame was sent to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies foradministrative approval. Since the auditors objected for allocatingRs.10 Crores from the profit of the appellant - Bank, without theapproval of the Government, the same was kept as un-disbursed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ profit, pending approval of the Government. 27.In fact, even before the aforesaid settlement dated24.10.1996, the appellant - Bank wrote a letter dated 12.09.1996 tothe Registrar of Co-operative Societies, about the justifiability ofthe claim of employees for payment of pension. Presumably, itcould have been based on the earlier settlement entered into in theyear 1991. Paras 4 and 8 of the said letter are extractedhereunder:"4.It is rather unfortunate that the employeesare not enjoying the benefits of service renderedby them, after their retirement from the servicesof the Bank. The retirement benefits now enjoyedby them in the form of Employees' Provident Fundaccretions and Gratuity shall not provide adequatecompensation for the long period of service theyhave put in. It is only a "Pension Scheme" thatcould provide succour to the retired employees, asa regular means of income to take both ends meet.Such a pension scheme is absent in our Bank so far.Reserve Bank of India, State Bank of India and theState / Central Government employees are covered bysuitable pension schemes and it is high time that aPension Scheme is introduced in TNSC Bank. .....8.We have made an all-time high record ofprofit of Rs.35.56 Crores (subject to audit) forthe year ended March 1996. We felt if a Corpus Fundis created, with allocation of Reserve from theBank to take care of pension payments, it will notpose a financial burden on the Bank at any futurepoint of time. The General Manager (Admn.) of ourBank has already held discussions with theRegistrar of Co-operative Societies and also withthe Director of Co-operative Audit. TheDirectorate of Co-operative Audit is in favour ofintroduction of Pension Scheme and allocation ofReserves to the Corpus Fund, in principle, subjecthowever to the administrative approval of theRegistrar of Co-operative Societies. TheStreamlining Committee which was set up to go intothe pay scales and service conditions of CentralCoop. Bank Employees in Tamil Nadu, has recommendedintroduction of Pension Scheme to the Government." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28.The appellant - Bank took up the matter to theRegistrar of Co-operative Societies, requesting him to recommend tothe Government for approval of the allocation of Rs.10 Crores madeby them to the Pension Corpus. But, no orders were passed by theGovernment in this regard, either refusing, or permitting thetransfer of Rs.10 Crores to Pension Corpus. 29.While so, the retirees pressed for payment of pensionas provided under the settlement. In these circumstances, theappellant - Bank resorted to payment of adhoc pension at the rate of50% of the pension payable under the settlement. The adhoc pensionwas paid to the retirees only from 01.01.1997. Without the approvalof the Government for transfer of the allocated sum of Rs.10 Croresto the Pension Corpus, the Scheme is not viable and could not beoperated. Even the adhoc pension was not paid to the persons, whoretired after June 2003. The appellant - Bank wrote a letter dated14.05.2004 to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The relevantpassages from the letter dated 14.05.2004 are extracted hereunder:"Pursuant to the settlements entered into, theBank has agreed to pay pension to the retirees ofthe Bank on and from 01.01.1991, by providingsufficient funds to the Pension Corpus.We have appropriated Rs.10 Crores to thePension Corpus, out of the profits earned during1995-96, which was duly approved by the GeneralBody of the Bank on 29.01.1997. The same has beensent to the Registrar of Coop. Societies foradministrative approval. The action of the Bank in allocating Rs.10.00Crores from out of the profit of the Bank withoutthe approval of the Government was objected to bythe auditors and hence, pending approval of theGovernment, the same has been kept as undisbursedprofit. Since the Trade Union Organisations had putpressure on the Bank to implement the PensionScheme as per the Settlement entered into, we hadstarted paying Adhoc Pension at 50% of the eligiblePension to those who have retired from 1991onwards. The Adhoc Pension was paid from January1997 by drawing funds from the TNSC Bank Employees'Superannuation Trust Fund maintained by the LIC,for which purpose, the Trustees of the Fund havepassed a resolution to draw funds from LIC forpayment of Adhoc Pension. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Subsequently we have applied for exemptionfrom EPS 1995 to the PF Authorities on 19.02.1997.As on date, we are paying Adhoc Pension to 121retirees of the Bank to the extent of Rs.4,85,000/-per month by drawing funds from LIC. The minimumand maximum amount of Adhoc Pension paid to theretirees are Rs.400/- and Rs.5900/- respectively.We are not paying Adhoc Pension to 18retirees, who are retired from the services of theBank from June 2003 since the Pension proposal ofthe Bank has not been approved by the Government......As per the Scheme of LIC, we have set aside asum of Rs.13.28 Crores from out of Rs.20/- Croresavailable under the corpus to the Category III toVI. .....The balance amount of Rs.6.72 Crores is notsufficient to purchase annuity for payment ofPension to the existing Pensioners. In order tomake the scheme viable, the Government may permitthe Bank to transfer the sum of Rs.10.00 Croreskept as undisbursed profit, to LIC. If this isdone, the balance amount available for purchase ofannuity, will go up to Rs.16.72 Crores. From this,we can purchase annuity, as suggested by LIC, forpayment of Pension to the existing Pensioners. .....If the Government gives its approval for theallocation of Rs.10.00 Crores, which was kept asundisbursed profit, to the Pension Corpus, then theScheme would become viable and the Bank canimplement the Pension Scheme." The appellant - Bank was of the view that if the Government approvedthe allocation of Rs.10 Crores, which was kept as un-disbursedprofit under the Pension Corpus, then the Scheme would become viableand the appellant - Bank could implement the Pension Scheme. 30.The appellant - Bank wrote another letter dated21.12.2004 to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, requestinghim to recommend to the Government to get administrative approvalfor transferring the sum of Rs.10 Crores to the Pension Corpus. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relevant passage from the said letter is extracted hereunder:"Out of total Pension Corpus Fund of Rs.20.06Crores, we have set aside Rs.13.28 Crores to theabove categories. The balance amount of Rs.6.78Crores available is not sufficient enough topurchase annuity for payment of Pension to theretirees. If the Government permits to transferthe sum of Rs.10.00 Crores, which was kept asundisbursed profit, to the Pension Corpus Fund, theamount available for purchase of annuity will go upto Rs.16.78 Crores. From this we can purchaseannuity, as suggested by LIC, for payment ofPension to the existing Pensioners.....Hence, we request the Registrar of Coop.Societies to kindly recommend to the Governmentfavourably to get Administrative Approval fortransferring a sum of Rs.10.00 Crores kept asundisbursed profit to the Pension Corpus Fund withLIC, so as to enable the Bank to run the schemesmoothly."31.On the above lines, another letter dated 18.03.2005 wasalso addressed to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by theappellant – Bank. The relevant passage from the letter dated18.03.2005 is extracted hereunder:"In view of the above, if we receive theAdministrative Approval of the Government on orafter 01.04.2005, we will have to pay FringeBenefit Tax at the rate of 30% i.e., the Bank hasto pay a sum of Rs.3.00 Crores as Fringe BenefitTax for the contribution of Rs.10.00 Crores to thePension Corpus Fund. In the above circumstances, we request theRegistrar of Coop. Societies to kindly recommend tothe Government to give us the administrativeapproval on the same on or before 31.03.2005, so asto avoid tax liability."32.As stated above, the persons retired after June 2003,were not paid pension and the same led to the filing of writpetition in W.P.No.27318 of 2004. Therefore, there were 2 classes ofretirees viz., the retirees who were paid pension and the retireeswho were not paid pension. The Trustees of the Pension Corpus Fund https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ insisted for payment of adhoc pension to all the retirees, and thatthere shall not be any discrimination among the retirees. In thesecircumstances, the appellant - Bank stopped payment of adhoc pensionto all the retirees of the appellant - Bank from April 2005 onwards.33.In view of the said crisis, the appellant - Bank againwrote a letter dated 15.06.2005 to the Registrar of Co-operativeSocieties, requesting him to get approval from the Government forthe transfer of Rs.10 Crores to the Pension Corpus Fund. Therelevant paras from the said letter dated 15.06.2005 are extractedhereunder:"Now, the Trustees of the Pension Corpus Fundinsisted for payment of Adhoc Pension to all theretirees (121+38=159) of the Bank and there shallnot be any discrimination among the retirees. In view of the above, the Bank has stoppedpayment of Adhoc Pension to all the retirees of theBank from April 2005 onwards. Now, the TNSC Bank Pensioners' Association andthe other Employees' / Officers' Organisations arepressing for payment of Adhoc Pension to all theretirees of the Bank. Further, the Life Insurance Corporation ofIndia, is time and again insist for finalization ofPension Scheme and purchase Annuities to theretirees of the Bank for payment of Pension. Since the available funds with LIC is notsufficient enough to purchase Annuities to meet thePension demands of the retirees, we request you Sirto please look into the matter and obtain theapproval of the Government of Tamil Nadu, at theearliest, for transferring the sum of Rs.10.00Crores, which is kept as undisbursed profit to thePension Corpus Fund maintained with LIC, so as toenable us to overcome the present situation and runthe Pension Scheme smoothly."34.While the appellant - Bank wrote series of letters,referred to above, requesting the Registrar of Co-operative ofSocieties to take up the matter to the Government for approval oftransfer of Rs.10 Crores to the Pension Corpus Fund, the appellant -Bank directly wrote a letter dated 21.06.2005 to the Government,requesting to grant necessary approval. The following paras from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said letter dated 21.06.2005 are extracted hereunder:"If the Government permits to transfer the sumof Rs.10.00 Crores, which was kept as undisbursedprofit, to the Pension Corpus Fund, the amountavailable for purchase of annuity will go up toRs.18.14 Crores. From this we can purchaseannuity, as suggested by LIC, for payment ofPension to the retirees at Adhoc Pension level. ...Taking into consideration all the abovefactors, we request the Special Secretary toGovernment to please look into the matter and givethe administrative approval of the Government forthe pension scheme to the retiring employees of theBank and also for transferring the sum of Rs.10.00Crores, to the Pension Corpus Fund maintained withLIC so as to enable us to overcome the presentsituation and to run the Pension Scheme."35.While so, the Government wrote a letter dated 14.02.2006 tothe Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the content of the saidletter is extracted hereunder:"I am directed to invite attention to thereferences cited and to request you to examine inconsultation with the Special Officer, Tamil NaduState Apex Co-operative Bank in regard to thepossibility of adding the interest to the corpus ofRs.10.00 Crores or increase the corpus fund fromRs.10.00 Crores to 12.00 or 13.00 Crores accordingto the requirement and with the contribution madeby the employees and management to formulate arevised proposal for sanction of 25% of pay and D.Aas pension for those who have appointed before1.4.2003 by entering into a revised settlement withthe employees Union under Section 18(1) ofIndustrial Disputes Act and send sustainable schemefor consideration of the Government."36.In the meantime, on 21.04.2006 and 28.09.2006 inW.P.No.27318 of 2004 and W.P.No.36632 of 2006 respectively, thisCourt passed an interim order, directing the appellant - Bank to pay15% of the due pension payable under the settlement, as an interimmeasure, to the retirees, who approached this Court. The Governmentpassed an order dated 08.03.2007 extending the interim relief to theretirees, including the retirees, who have not approached thisCourt. Thus, interim pension at the rate of 15% was granted to all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the retirees. 37.When the matter was listed before the Hon'bleMr.Justice M.Jaichandren in December 2006, all the parties,including the appellant - Bank agreed for finding a solution to thepayment of Pension, by appointing a Committee. Under suchcircumstances, the learned Judge passed an order dated 22.12.2006,constituting a Committee, consisting of 15 Members. The said orderwas a consensus order. The relevant passage from the said order isextracted hereunder:"4.In such circumstances, suggestions havecome from the learned counsels appearing on behalfof the parties in the above mentioned WritPetitions, to arrive at a workable solution byconstituting a committee comprising ofrepresentatives of the petitioners and therespondents.5.Based on the said submissions and thesuggestions made, this Court finds it isappropriate to constitute a committee consisting ofthe following members:1.M.Jayaraman representing the 2.V.Piramanayagam Writ petitioners3.N.Parthasarathy, AGM representing the4.J.Selvaganapathy, AGM first respondent 5.S.Viswanathan, AGM 6.V.R.Chozhan, Assistant Manager representing thesecond 7.T.Baskaranrespondent8.K.G.Jayakumarrepresenting the9.J.Venkateswaran third respondent10.P.Rajarethinam representing the11.K.Manohar fourth respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.Under Secretary to the Government of Co-operativerepresenting the Department fifth respondent13.Additional Registrar (Credit)14.R.Sathyanarayanan, Admn., Officer, L.I.C.representing the15.A.Rajendiran, Branch sixth respondent Manager, L.I.C6.The Governor of the Committee would be theUnder Secretary to the Government, Co-operativeDepartment, who shall call for the meetings andconduct the same and submit a report to this Courtwith regard to the viability of the scheme, withina period of six weeks from the date of receipt ofthe copy of this order."38.Before the Committee, both the Governmentrepresentatives, the convenor and the appellant - Bank agreed forthe payment of pension at the rate of 17.5%, while the employees /retirees demanded pension ranging from 25 to 35%. Hence, there wasno consensus. 39.In the meantime, the Government issued a letter dated08.03.2007 to the appellant - Bank permitting them to pay pension atthe rate of 15% from the amount of Rs.10 Crores, allocated forPension Corpus fund, from and out of the profits earned by theappellant - Bank during the year 1995-1996. It is also stated thatthe viability of the Scheme and quantum of compensation payable tothe retirees could be decided by the Government, after examining thereport from the pension experts. The contents of the said letterdated 08.03.2007 are extracted hereunder:"I am directed to invite attention to thereferences cited and to state that the Governmenthave decided to honour the Court directions forpayment of 15% interim pension to those retirees ofthe Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative Bank who havegone to the Court and obtained orders to thiseffect from the Court. I am to state that theinterim pension of 15% be paid from the amount ofRs.10.00 Crores allocated for the Pension CorpusFund from out of the profits earned by the TamilNadu State Apex Cooperative Bank during the year1995-96 which was duly approved by the Annual https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ General Body meeting of the Bank. For thispurpose, I am to state that the Government byexercising their powers conferred under Section 170(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act,1983 exempt the Tamil Nadu State Apex CooperativeBank from the provision of Section 72 of the saidAct so as to enable the Tamil Nadu State ApexCooperative Bank to draw and utilize the aboveamount for this purpose. I am to add that theviability of this scheme and the quantum of pensionpayable to the retirees of the Tamil Nadu StateApex Cooperative Bank will be decided by theGovernment after examining the report from thepension experts. The receipt of this letter maykindly be acknowledged."40.The appellant - Bank also wrote another letter dated12.07.2007 to the Government, that was heavily relied on by thelearned Judge for granting pension at the rate of 20%. The relevantpassage as relied on by the learned Judge is extracted hereunder:"Though the Government of Tamil Nadu vide itsletter has advised the Bank to consider thepossibility of increasing the Corpus Fund fromRs.10.00 Crores to Rs.12.00 Crores or Rs.13.00Crores and pay Pension at 25%, it is possible forthe Bank to pay Pension only at 20.00% within thequantum of Rs.13.00 Crores (already earmarkedamount of Rs.10.00 Crores + Rs.3.00 CroresInterest)."In fact, the Government suggested for payment of pension at the rateof 25%. This could be seen from the aforesaid passage itself.Further, the appellant - Bank made the following request to theGovernment in the said letter, for payment of pension at the rate of25%. "In view of the above, we request theGovernment of Tamil Nadu to consider the following:It is suggested that the Bank may be pay Pensionat 25% of the Average 10 months Basic Pay andDearness Allowance. By paying at 25% theadditional commitment on part of the Bank wouldbe 23.73 Crores (58.60 – 34.87 = 23.73 Crores)which is well within the accumulated earmarkedsum of Rs.10.00 Crores (26.51 Crores) allocatedin the year 1995-96. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Since it is not possible for the Bank tocontribute the entire sum of Rs.23.73 Crores inone Lumpsum, it is suggested that the above summay be contributed in three annual instalmentstogether with interest for the balance amount atthe rate prescribed by the LIC. Further, if we pay Pension at 25%, the Bank caneasily convince the Employees / OfficersOrganisations and Pensioners' Association andimplement the Pension Scheme as per thedirections of the Hon'ble High Court."41.According to the appellant - Bank, Rs.10 Croresallocated by the appellant - Bank for the Pension Corpus Fund wasnot kept idle and the said amount earned interest. According tothem, the said amount of Rs.10 Crores along with the accumulatedinterest, comes to Rs.26.51 Crores. The appellant – Bank also statedthat if Rs.23.73 Crores is permitted to be transferred to PensionCorpus Fund, it could be possible to pay pension at the rate of 25%.The appellant - Bank has also obtained an expert opinion fromM/s.Darashaw. The actuarial report dated 03.07.2007 gives theprojection of the deficit for pension if paid at the rate of 50% or20% or 25% respectively. The projection is as follows:"Table 6Pension Pension CostAdditional Pension DeficitCost15%3329957930 1529438520%443994391110998598 12629298325%554992988221997195 237291580"42.However, the Life Insurance Corporation of India gave adifferent projection. According to them, the deficit is much morethan the projection of M/s.Darashaw. As per M/s.Darashaw's report,by transferring Rs.26.3 Crores, representing the allocation of Rs.10Crores along with interest, could meet the requirement for paymentof pension at the rate of 25%. But it is no so in the case of LifeInsurance Corporation of India. 43.In these circumstances, the learned Judge thought thatthe aforesaid facts constitute special circumstances warranting theentertainment of the writ petitions. In our view, the specialcircumstances are as visualised in proposition No.(vii) of thelarger Bench judgement of this Court cited supra. Hence, thelearned Judge has correctly entertained the writ petitions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

44.The aforesaid facts make it very clear that thearguments that are advanced before this Court are contrary to theseries of letters, written to the Registrar of Co-operativeSocieties and the Government. In fact, both the Government as wellas the appellant - Bank were of the view that it could be possiblethat pension could be paid at the rate of 25%. 45.As per the settlement, the persons who retired on orafter 01.01.1991 are entitled to pension. That is, the persons whowere at the age of 58 years as of 1991 are entitled to pension.Those persons are now aged 78 years. Those senior citizens couldnot be driven now, to go to some other forum, after all theexercises referred to above, took place. More importantly, theappellant - Bank agreed for a constitution of a Committee by thisCourt to resolve the issue and a Committee was also constituted.The appellant - Bank was willing to pay pension at the rate of17.5%, while the employees / retirees pitched high demanding rangingfrom 25 to 35%. Hence, there was no consensus. At this juncture, thelearned Judge, taking into account the aforesaid facts, fixedpension at the rate of 20%, that too from October 2008. Existence ofalternate remedy is not an absolute bar for entertaining writpetitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. On the other hand,it is a self imposed restriction. In a proper case, inspite ofexistence of an alternate remedy, this Court could entertain writpetitions. The judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel forthe appellants are not applicable to the facts of the case. Hence,we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Judge. 46.In view of the aforesaid facts, the appellant - Bankcould not say that the matter involves disputed questions of fact,particularly, when the learned Judge fixed pension at the rate of20% only, even when the appellant - Bank was of the view thatpayment of pension at the rate of 25% is possible, as stated intheir letter dated 12.07.2007. Furthermore, the matter is relatingto pension. It is a different matter, if the same is relating toconditions of service, other than pension. Though the appellant -Bank is not State under Article 12 of the Constitution, the pensionto their employees, pursuant to the settlement, is the right to lifeand livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.Even in a case of an individual workman, for his claim to pensionagainst a private Bank, a Division Bench of this Court inA.K.ANSARI VS. BHARAT OVERSEAS BANK LTD., reported in 1999 (3)L.L.N. 310 upheld the maintainability of the writ petition. The saidjudgment squarely applies to the facts of this case also,particularly since the retirees from 01.01.1991 numbering about 271are involved in this case. Paras 12(E) and 12(W) of the saidjudgment are extracted hereunder: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "12E. The Division Bench had not laid downthat no writ is maintainable against the respondent– bank but it has accepted the principle that thewrit petition is maintainable against therespondent – bank where situations warrant as hasbeen laid down by the Division Bench in MadrasLabour Union V. Binny Ltd., [1995 (1) L.L.N.687],as well as in V.Sadasivan and others V. Binny Ltd.[1998 (1) L.L.N. 235] (vide supra)....12(W) In the foregoing circumstances, in thelight of the aforesaid pronouncements of the ApexCourt as well as the Division Bench of this Court,we confirm the view taken by the learned SingleJudge that the writ petition is maintainable andthe contention to the contra raised by SriT.K.Seshadri has to be necessarily rejected. On thefacts and to the limited extent indicated above, wehold that the writ petition is maintainable."47.All the above facts were relied on by the retirees tosustain the order as well as for fixing the pension at higher rate.While we are inclined to sustain the order of the learned Judge, wedo not find any reason to enhance the rate of pension, as requiredby the retirees. 48.In fine, these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTK https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Divisional Manager (P & GS) Life Insurance Corporation of India 102, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.3.The Secretary to Government,Co-operation Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.4.The Special Officer/Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd.,No.233,N.S.C.Bose Road,Chennai-600 001.+1cc to Mr.S.J.Jagadev,Advocate Sr 66791+1cc to Mr.P.Anbarasan, Advocate Sr 66669+2ccs to Mr.R.Arumugam, Advocate Sr 66830+1cc to Mr.R.Sivakumar, Advocate Sr 66793+1cc to Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate Sr 66703NG(CO)km/16.9.W.A.NOS.1390 TO 1393 OF 2008AND 111, 112, 253 AND 1228 OF 2009