IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 18393 of 2003 Between: Andhra Bank Voluntarily Retired Staff Association, a society registered under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli, Registration Certificate No. 7945/2001, Rep. by its President, H.No. 2-47, Chaitanyapuri, Satyanarayanapuram, Hyderabad - 500 060. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Bank, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Head Office, Dr. Pattabhi Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500004. 2 General Manager (HRD), Andhra Bank, Head Office, Dr. Pattabhi Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 004. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to (A) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Direction or Order declaring that the action of the respondent bank in not paying the pension to the employees who retired under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000, in terms of the Regulation 29(5) of the Andhra Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, to the staff retired under Voluntary Retirement Scheme as per the Regulation 29 (5) of the Andhra Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 which are binding on the Respondent Bank, is arbitrary, capricious, illegal unreasonable and unjust and violative of Articles 14,16,21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue consequential direction to the Respondents to pay the employees who took retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000, the arrears of the pension, i.e., the difference between the pension payable in terms of Regulation 29(5) of the Andhra Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, and the amount actually paid, and pay all other consequential benefits, with interest at the rat of 12% per annum, and pay monthly pension in terms of the said Regulation No. 29(5) of the pension regulations; (B) Direct the contesting Respondents to pay the petitioners the costs of this Writ Petition; and (c) Grant the petitioners such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.S.RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 18393 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking declaration that the action of the respondents in disallowing five years notional service to the actual service for fixation of pensionary benefits to the optees of Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 is arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioners in terms of Regulation 29 (5) of the Andhra Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice that during the pendency of this writ petition, some of the employees of other banks, filed writ petitions and ultimately, the matter went to the Supreme Court of India by Civil Appeal No.1942 of 2009 and batch. The appeals were disposed of by the Supreme Court by judgment dated 27.3.2009 holding that the employees are entitled in terms of Regulation 29 (5) of the Pension Regulations and directing the respective banks to recalculate the pension payable to the concerned employees by giving them the benefit of Regulation 29 (5). It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for both the petitioners and the respondents that the petitioners herein are also similarly situated and therefore, the writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1942 of 2009 and batch. Accordingly, the wit petition is disposed of holding that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29 (5) of the Andhra Bank (Employees) of the Pension Regulations 1995. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to recalculate the pension payable to the petitioners herein by giving them the benefit of Regulation 29 (5) as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _______________ Justice G.Rohini Date:21.04.2009 mrb