IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 31817 of 1998 Between: 1 Smt. R.L. Rangamma, W/o R.K.Murthy, R/o Markapur, Prakasam District. 2 R. Satyanarayana, S/o R.K.Murthy, R/o Markapur, Prakasam District. (minor rep. by her mother, Smt. R.L.Rangamma) ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Prakasam Region, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Markapur, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents herein in not paying the death benefits to the petitioner along with interest and other consequential benefits under the APSRTC Staff-Benevolent Thrift Fund Scheme as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory an voilative of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.V.MALLIK Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.31817 of 1998 ORDER: The petitioners seek a declaration from this Court that the action of the respondents in not paying the death benefits of Sri R.K.Murthy, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, along with interest and other consequential benefits under the A.P.S.R.T.C. Staff Benevolent-cum- Thrift Fund Scheme is arbitrary and illegal. Facts, in brief, are that the 1st petitioner’s husband was absorbed into the services of the A.P.S.R.T.C. on 17.04.1995 under the displaced employees’ category. Even at the time of his entry into the services of the A.P.S.R.T.C., he was above 50 years of age. The 1st petitioner’s husband continued to serve the Corporation till he died while in service on 24.05.1998. From 17.04.1995 onwards, when he joined service, the 1st petitioner’s husband paid subscription to the Staff Benevolent-cum- Thrift Fund Scheme introduced by the Corporation through its Resolution No.52 of 1980 dated 27.02.1980. The Staff Benevolent-cum- Thrift Fund Scheme is a Society registered under the A.P.Telangana Area Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli and has been registered as such vide Registration No.115 of 1983. The said S.B.T.Fund was introduced by the A.P.S.R.T.C. vide Resolution No.52/1980, dated 27.02.1980 as a welfare measure for its employees. As noted above, the 1st petitioner’s husband continued to pay his subscription to the said Fund till he died while in service on 24.05.1998. The Society, however, refused to pay him the benefits under the Staff Benevolent-cum-Thrift Fund (hereinafter referred to as “S.B.T.Fund”) contending that since he was aged above 50 years even at the time of his absorption into the services of the Corporation, he was not entitled to become a member of the S.B.T.Fund. The Society relied on Minute No.23/1987, dated 07.09.1987, of the Managing Committee whereunder, while examining the consequences of absorption of displaced employees, of private operators, into the services of the Corporation as also employees who were decasualised and appointed to regular cadres on and after 01.02.1980, the Managing Committee of the Society resolved that only those displaced employees, decasualised employees and work charged employees on time scale in C.D.E., who were below the age of 50 years only as on the date of regular appointment, could be admitted as Members of the S.B.T.Fund. Relying on the said resolution of the Managing Committee and, in as much as, the petitioner was aged more than 50 years at the time of his initial absorption into the services of the Corporation, the Society held that he was not entitled for the benefits under the S.B.T. Fund. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, would however submit that the subscription amount paid by the 1st petitioner’s husband has been returned along with interest till the date of repayment. Sri V.Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioners, would refer to several provisions and bye-laws to contend that while employees appointed prior to 01.02.1980 were given the option whether or not to join the S.B.T.Fund, all employees of the Corporation appointed on and after 01.02.1980 automatically became members of the S.B.T.Fund. Learned counsel would submit that the Managing Committee has no authority to deny extending these benefits to employees of the Corporation and that the Minutes of the Managing Committee of the society dated 07.09.1987 and the circular issued pursuant thereto by the Managing Committee on 19.10.1987 did not amount to an amendment of the Bye-law, in as much as the said amendment has not been approved by the Corporation. Learned counsel would submit that, in the absence of any amendment to the bye-laws, all employees of the Corporation, who were appointed on or after 01.02.1980, automatically became the members of the society and, on payment of subscription, were entitled to the benefits of the S.B.T.Fund. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, would, however, trace the power of the Managing Committee to pass the resolution dated 07.09.1987 to Bye-law 7 (iii) (c) of the bye-laws whereunder the Managing Committee may, by a resolution, admit as a Member of the S.B.T.Fund any employee of the Corporation. Learned Standing counsel would contend that the Managing Committee had decided not to admit as members all employees of the Corporation who had crossed the age of 50 years at the time of their initial absorption and, since such a power has been conferred on the Managing Committee under the bye-laws, the petitioner was rightly denied the said benefits and that the Corporation had returned the subscription amount paid by the 1st petitioner’s husband along with interest. Before examining the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer, in brief, to relevant bye-laws. Bye-law 3 (ii) (b) provides that the bye-laws shall be applicable to all employees of the Corporation who are/may be appointed on or after 01.02.1980. Under the explanation thereunder, “Employees of the Corporation” mean the Employees as defined in Reg.2 (iv-a) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964. Regulation 2(iv) (a) defines “employee” to mean a person employed by the Corporation but does not include a person who is employed on a daily wage basis. Since the 1st petitioner’s husband was not employed on daily wage basis, he satisfies the requirements of being an employee under Regulation 2 (iv) (a) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964. Bye-law 3 (iii) specifically provides that the Bye-laws shall not be applicable to Casual Employees on daily wages, Workcharged Employees, who were on daily wages or on consolidated pay, employees on contract basis and Ex-TTD employees who were transferred to Corporation and who did not opt for the A.P.S.R.T.C. Service Conditions. The 1st petitioner’s husband does not come under any of these excepted categories also. Under clause (h) of Bye-law 5, a “Member” is defined to mean an employee of the Corporation who opted to the Fund/an Employee who is appointed on and after 01.02.1980 and who is admitted as a member of the Fund. Every person who is appointed to the Corporation on and after 01.02.1980, and who is admitted as a Member of the Fund, thus falls within the definition of a “Member” under Regulation 5 (h). Bye-law (7) (iii) deals the Powers and Functions of the Managing Committee and clause (c) thereunder reads thus:- “The Managing Committee may by a resolution admit as a Member of the Fund any Employee of the Corporation as stipulated under Bye-laws (3) and any Employee of the established Organisation like APSRTC Employees’ Co- operative Credit Society Limited, APSRTC Staff Mutual Benefit Fund etc. which primarily, are established as service organization for the Employees’ of the Corporation stipulating such conditions as it deems fit.” Bye-law 16 deals with subscription and Bye-law 21 deals with the amendments to the bye-laws. Under Bye-law 21 (ii), the amendment or alteration shall come into force after the same is approved by the Corporation. Since the entire controversy revolves around the question as to whether the Resolution of the Managing Committee dated 07.09.1987, and the Circular issued consequent thereto on 19.10.1987, is referable to Bye-law 7 (iii) (c), it is necessary to examine the scope of the said Bye-law. The power under Bye-law 7 (iii) (c) has been conferred on the Managing Committee to decide whether an individual member, even if he be an employee of the Corporation, is entitled to be admitted as a member of the Society or not. Regulation 7 (iii) (c) does not empower the Managing Committee to exclude a class of the employees from being admitted as members of the Fund. For such exclusion, the Bye-laws should have, necessarily, been amended restricting the definition of an “Employee” and a “Member” and excluding therefrom all employees of the Corporation who were above 50 years of age when they were initially absorbed into the service of the Corporation. As noted above, any such amendment to the bye-laws would have come into force only on the amendment being approved by the Corporation under Bye-law 21 (ii). Admittedly, no such approval has been obtained by the Corporation to the aforesaid Resolution dated 07.09.1987 passed by the Managing Committee. As such, the said Resolution cannot be said to amount to an amendment of the Bye-laws. As a result, displaced employees of Private Operators, absorbed in the services of the Corporation, even if they be aged above 50 years at the time of their initial absorption into the services of the Corporation, cannot be denied membership as a class, since no such power has been conferred on the Managing Committee under Bye-law 7 (iii) (c) of the Bye-laws of the Society. The very fact that the 1st petitioner’s husband was permitted to pay his subscription right from his initial appointment till he died while in service on 24.05.1998 would further justify the petitioner being held entitled for payment of the benefits under the Staff Benevolent-cum-Thrift Fund. There shall, therefore, be a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioners the Staff Benevolent-cum-Thrift Fund benefits to which the 1st petitioner’s husband was entitled to, of course after adjusting the amount already paid to the petitioners earlier representing the subscription paid by the 1st petitioner’s husband along with interest. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 19.06.2008 v v To 1 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Prakasam Region, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Markapur, Prakasam District. 4. 2CCs to 5. 2CD copies