HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Dated: 02-12-2009 WRIT APPEAL No. 1392 OF 2009 Between: The A.P State Co.op. Marketing Federation Ltd., 5-9-58/B, 7th Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad rep., by its Managing Director and another ... APPELLANTS AND Sri P.S. Sastry ... RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1392 OF 2009 JUDGEMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal is filed against order dated 24-06-2009 in Writ Petition No. 22273 of 2006, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent. The brief facts that lead to the filing of the writ petition and the present writ appeal are that the respondent was an employee of appellant No.1. Before he reached the age of superannuation, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. However, the respondent was permitted to retire with effect from 31-07-2006 subject to continuance of the disciplinary proceedings against him. The appellants withheld the terminal benefits payable to the respondent on his retirement. This has been questioned by the respondent by filing Writ Petition No. 22273 of 2006. While the respondent has relied upon the judgments of this Court in similar cases, wherein it was held that in the absence of a specific provision, it is not permissible for the appellants to withhold the terminal benefits of a retired employee on the ground of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the appellants have however pleaded that they have amended the regulations governing the service conditions of their employees and that according to the said amendment, the appellants are entitled to withhold the terminal benefits of a retired employee if disciplinary proceedings were pending, till completion of such disciplinary proceedings. The learned single Judge rejected the contention of the appellants on the ground that while the respondent has retired on 31-07-2006, the amendment to the service regulations has come into force with effect from 16-12-2006 and that, therefore, the said amendment has no application to the case of the respondent. At the hearing, Sri T. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the submissions made by him before the learned single Judge. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parameshwari Prasad Gupta Vs. Union of India. Under Section 16(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’), no amendment of bye-law of a society shall be valid unless the resolution for such amendment is passed at its general meeting by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting and such amendment has been registered under the Act. The said provision further envisages that where such an amendment is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day, then it shall come into force on the day on which it is registered. Admittedly, much before the amendment was registered, the respondent has retired. It is not the case of the appellants that any date was expressly fixed for the amendment to come into force. Therefore, by operation of Section 16 (1) of the Act, the amended regulation is deemed to have come into force only from 16-12-2006 and consequently, the said regulation does not have any retrospective operation so as to cover the case of the respondent. Having carefully gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, we are of the view that the same has no application to the facts of the present case, because that was a case where the decision taken by the Chairman of a company was ratified by the Board of Directors and the apex Court therefore held that as it was a case of ratification, the decision is deemed to have come into effect from the date on which the Chairman has taken the decision. As the present case is governed by a specific statutory provision, which as noted above, expressly stipulates that the amendment will come into force on the day when it is registered, the above mentioned judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. As we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ appeal, WAMP No. 2902 of 2009, filed by the appellants for interim relief, is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02-12-2009 ks