IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 989 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/09/2000 in WP NO : 16997 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: N.V.Krishnam Raju S/o Late.Suryanarayana Raju R/o MIG-B 143 ,Sagar Nagar Visakhapatnam -43 ..... APPELLANT AND Dist Cooperative Central Bank Ltd rep by its GM. Eluru,W.Godavari Dist .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.HARI SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.989 OF 2001 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is filed questioning the order dated 13.09.2000 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.16997 of 2000. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The appellant retired from the service of the respondent Bank on 30.06.1993 while working as Accountant at its Ganapavaram Branch, West Godavari District. Under Section 11 of the A.P. Co-operative Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Primary Agricultural Development Banks (for brevity, ‘the PADB’) were abolished and their rights and assets were vested with the District Co-operative Central Banks (for brevity ‘the DCCB’) and their employees were placed under the control of the concerned DCCBs. The Government prescribed Rule 73 under A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) and issued G.O.Ms.No.132, Agriculture and Co-operation (Co-Op.III) Department dated 03.03.1993 for the merger of services of PADBs and DCCBs. Consequently, all the employees of the erstwhile PADBs were transferred to the DCCBs concerned. The appellant, being the employee of erstwhile PADB was also transferred to the concerned DCCB and eventually retired on 30.06.1993 as stated hereinabove. Thereafter, the respondent issued a Circular Memorandum dated 20.06.1994 detailing the guidelines for integration of services viz. inter district transfers, notional promotions, seniority, creation of supernumerary posts of Assistant General Mangers, fixation of pay and wage parity etc. In terms of Rule 73 of the Rules, option was given to the erstwhile PADBs personnel to opt for DCCBs pay and allowances and if they choose to opt, they shall be so governed with effect from 01.01.1993. Accordingly, the concerned General Managers of the DCCBs called for option from the employees of erstwhile PADBs and those employees who chose the option and whose pay scales had been fixed pursuant thereto, were paid the arrears accordingly. However, by the time the option was sought, the appellant retired from service and the wage parity benefit was not extended to him though he was entitled to the same for the period 01.01.1993 to 30.06.1993. Having come to know of the same, the appellant made a representation on 16.07.1996 to the respondent requesting extension of the wage parity benefit to him but there was no response from the respondent. Therefore, the appellant made a request in this regard to the District Secretary, A.P. Co-operative Central Bank Employees Association, West Godavari Unit, Eluru, who forwarded a representation on his behalf on 27.10.1999 reiterating the grievance of the appellant to the respondent. In response thereto, the respondent issued proceedings Rc.No.Estt/2000-2001 dated 13.05.2000 rejecting the request of the appellant for payment of wage parity benefit in accordance with Rule 73 of the Rules, taking into consideration the opinion of the respondent Bank’s Legal Advisor. Thereafter, the District Secretary of the said Association gave another representation on 17.07.2000 to the respondent with a request to reconsider the earlier proceedings dated 13.05.2000 and extend the wage parity benefit to the appellant. However, the respondent on 24.07.2000 informed the District Secretary of the said Association in the negative. It is the grievance of the appellant that without assigning any valid reason and without serving a copy of the so-called opinion of the Legal Advisor of the respondent Bank, the action of the respondent in rejecting his request to extend the benefit of wage parity in accordance with Rule 73 of the Rules, more particularly when similar benefit was extended to other employees of erstwhile PADBs, is contrary to law, arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition. The learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage held that in substance the appellant was seeking a money decree in a writ petition and that the appropriate remedy lies elsewhere. Challenging the said order, the present writ appeal is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as per Rule 73 of the Rules, an option was given to the PADBs personnel to opt for the DCCBs pay and allowances and if such option was exercised, they shall be so governed with effect from 01.01.1993 and all such employees who were in service as on 01.01.1993 were entitled to the said benefit. He further submitted that the appellant was in service as on 01.01.993 but by the time option was sought from the employees of erstwhile PADBs the appellant retired from service. He asserted that just because the option was called for on 25.10.1993 i.e. subsequent to the retirement of the appellant, he cannot be denied the said benefit. He contended that the respondent without considering the fact that the wage parity benefit was effective from 01.01.1993, on which date the appellant was very much in service, rejected the request of the appellant by its proceedings dated 13.05.2000 without proper application of mind. He therefore sought a direction to the respondent- Bank to consider the case of the appellant and pay the wage parity benefit to him. Smt.Bobba Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, submitted that the grievance of the appellant was considered and rejected by the Board of Management of the respondent Bank vide its Resolution No.15 dated 30.04.2000 and the same was communicated to the appellant; and that the appellant was not in service by the time the option was called for. We have perused the material on record. Admittedly, the wage parity benefit was extended to those employees of the Bank who were in service as on 01.01.1993 and who gave their option with regard thereto. As can be seen from the record, it is clear that the appellant was in service as on 01.01.1993 and retired from service on 30.06.1993. By the time the option was called for from the employees of the Bank, the appellant retired from service and therefore he did not receive the option form to exercise his option. The grievance of the appellant is that as per Rule 73 of the Rules, he is entitled to wage parity arrears with effect from 01.01.1993 upto 30.06.1993 @ Rs.1,300/- per month, difference in Gratuity amounting to Rs.35,000/- and difference in lien salary for 90 days amounting to Rs.3,400/-, in all a sum of Rs.46,200/-. It is also stated that employees of erstwhile PADBs who gave their option and whose pay scales had been fixed accordingly, were also paid arrears. Had the option been called for before 30.06.1993 on which date the appellant retired, the appellant would have definitely exercised his option being an erstwhile PADB employee as the same is beneficial to him. But, the option was called for subsequent to his retirement and as the same was not called for from him, forgetting the fact that he was in service as on 01.01.1993, he made a representation to the respondent on 16.07.1996 as soon as he came to know about the same but there was no response from the respondent. Therefore, he made a request in this regard to the District Secretary, A.P. Co-operative Central Bank Employees’ Association, West Godavari Unit, Eluru, who in turn submitted two representations on 27.10.1999 and 17.07.2000, but they proved to be futile. A mere perusal of the proceedings dated 13.05.2000 issued by the respondent clearly shows that the respondent did not assign any reasons, much less valid reasons, while rejecting the request of the appellant except mentioning that the Board of Management of the Bank had taken a decision to reject the request of the appellant taking the opinion of the Bank’s Legal Advisor into consideration. Under the above circumstances, we see some force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it would suffice if a direction is given to the appellant to make a fresh representation immediately to the respondent and on such representation the respondent shall consider and dispose of the same expeditiously in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 22nd June, 2009. PGS/VGSR THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.989 OF 2001 (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 22nd June, 2009