JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to the opposite party to calculate the pension at Rs. 9,210/- per month taking his past service in Central Co-operative Bank, Balasore into account. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was selected for appointment in the Balasore District Central Co-operative Bank as a Clerk and joined on 11.8.1958. He was thereafter promoted as Accountant and after further promotion, he became Secretary on 1.8.1976. He was trained under the Cadre Scheme formulated by the Orissa State Co-operative Bank as per its resolution and under the said resolution it was decided that he should be treat¬ed as an employee of the Orissa State Co-operative Bank (O.S.C.B.) from the date of joining in the Central Co-operative Bank, Balasore and he was also directed to offer his consent within one month. After receipt of the letter to the above ef¬fect, the petitioner offered his consent to be absorbed in the service of O.S.C.B. as per aforesaid resolution and pursuant to such consent, a further resolution was adopted by the opposite party on 23.9.1978. It was resolved in the said resolution that for the promotion pay scale, retirement benefits and other bene¬fits of service, his past service in the Central Bank shall be taken into account. The said terms and conditions were accepted by the petitioner and he joined the service under the O.S.C.B. The final gradation list in Annexure-6, as per the petitioner, indicates that one Shri N.C. Das and Shri N. K. Prusty joined service under the O.S.C.B. on 1.11.1966 and 29.8.1967 respective¬ly and the petitioner has been shown senior to them since his past service under the Central Co-operative Bank, Balasore was counted from 11.8.1958. While serving under the O.S.C.B., the petitioner and the aforesaid two persons were promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager. The petitioner was further pro¬moted to the post of Additional General Manager on 12.4.1994 whereas the aforesaid two persons continued as Deputy General Manager. Subsequently, on 8.11.1994 the petitioner became General Manager whereafter Shri N.C. Das was promoted as Additional General Manager. The post of General Manager was redesignated as Chief General Manager and the petitioner while serving as Chief General Manager retired on superannuation on 30th November, 1999 whereafter Shri N.C. Das was promoted as Chief General Manager on 1.12.1999. Subsequently, on 8.11.1994 the petitioner became General Manager whereafter Shri N.C. Das was promoted as Additional General Manager. The post of General Manager was redesignated as Chief General Manager and the petitioner while serving as Chief General Manager retired on superannuation on 30th November, 1999 whereafter Shri N.C. Das was promoted as Chief General Manager on 1.12.1999. It is the further case of the petitioner that while Shri N.C. Das became the General Manager, Shri N.K. Prusty became Additional General Manager on 31st May, 2000. On the basis of the above, it is claimed by the petitioner that the resolution passed by the Cadre Committee of the O.S.C.B. to consider the past service of the petitioner under the Balasore Central Co-operative Bank had been given effect to for the purpose of promotion. After retirement of the petitioner from service, the Cadre Committee of the O.S.C.B. in its resolution dated 22nd October, 1999 resolved to sanction retirement benefits such as pension and gratuity taking into account the period of service rendered by the peti¬tioner in the Central Co-operative Bank, Balasore and as per sanction order dated 30th November, 1999 the basic pension was fixed at Rs.5, 875/- and Dearness relief on basic pension was fixed at Rs.3,335/- and, therefore, the total sanctioned amount per month was Rs.9,210/-. While calculating the pension, it is evident that the past service of the petitioner had been taken into account. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the resolution passed by the O.S.C.B. at the time of absorption of the petitioner in the said organization having been given effect to, his pension was suddenly reduced to Rs.4,641/- for December, 1999 and January, 2000 and Rs.5,694/- for February, 2000. It is also the case of the petitioner that as per the said resolution though he had been paid full gratuity, his past serv¬ice under the Central Co-operative Bank, Balasore had not been taken into account for the purpose of pension. In the writ appli¬cation relying on the aforesaid resolution, a prayer is made for taking into account his past service in the Central Co-operative Bank for the purpose of calculation of pension. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party. In the writ appli¬cation relying on the aforesaid resolution, a prayer is made for taking into account his past service in the Central Co-operative Bank for the purpose of calculation of pension. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Cadre Committee, which had decided to absorb some employees of the Central Cooperative Banks in the common cadre to work as Chief Executives of District Central Cooperative Banks (not as employ¬ees of Central Cooperative Banks), did not have the statutory authority in as much as it was not constituted by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Orissa in terms of Section 33 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore, such a Committee, which had not been constituted as per law, had no authority to pass a resolution and as such any resolution passed by such Com¬mittee is not binding on the opposite party while calculating the pension. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the resolution relied upon by the petitioner clearly states that all benefits on his absorption as a cadre employee shall be subject to the Cadre Rules which were not approved by the competent au¬thority as required under the law and the said Cadre Rules also provided that in the event of abolition of working of the Cadre Committee of the Bank, the personnel of the Apex Bank shall be allowed to go back to their respective post from which they were selected or to any other higher post of the Apex Bank, if they are considered fit for which lien is granted to them. The other personnel in such event shall be allowed to be adjusted suitably in the general cadre of the Apex Bank without reduction of any monetary benefit provided they do not prefer to go back to the Central Bank from which they are appointed. So far as gradation list relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, it is contended in the counter affidavit that as per the gradation list published by the Bank on 1.10.1981 and 1.3.1991 the date of entry of the petitioner in the Bank service has been recorded as 23.10.1999 and the petitioner never objected to the same. So far as gradation list relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, it is contended in the counter affidavit that as per the gradation list published by the Bank on 1.10.1981 and 1.3.1991 the date of entry of the petitioner in the Bank service has been recorded as 23.10.1999 and the petitioner never objected to the same. It is also con¬tended in the counter affidavit that the post of Additional General Manager is a selection post and the petitioner having been found suitable was appointed in the said post while Shri N.C. Das and Shri N. K. Prusty were promoted as Deputy General Manager at that time. Such promotion of the petitioner to the post of Additional General Manager has got nothing to do with the seniority and, therefore, his claim of seniority on the basis of past service of the above two officers in this connection is not acceptable.It is also stated in the counter affidavit that if the Cadre Committee had resolved to give all financial benefits to the petitioner on retirement taking into account his past service under the Central Cooperative Bank, Balasore in 1978, there was no need for a further resolution to be passed by the said Cadre Committee in the year 1999 i.e. just eight days before the re¬tirement of the petitioner. It is, therefore, obvious that the petitioner had influenced the Committee of Management to pass resolution to his advantage on 22nd October, 1999. However, the said resolution dated 22.10.1999 has been subsequently superseded by the very same Committee. 4. Shri G.A.R. Dora, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that pursuant to Annexure-1 the petitioner submitted his consent to be absorbed in the serv¬ice of Orissa State Co-operative Bank Limited from the date of joining in the Central Co-operative Bank. He also submitted that in the resolution dated 23.9.1978 the Cadre Committee re¬solved that while considering the promotional aspect of the petitioner, pay scale, retirement benefits and other benefits of service, his past service shall be taken into account subject to the Cadre Rules of the Bank. On the basis of this resolution, Shri Dora contended that the petitioner had been given promotion considering his past service in the Central Co-operative Bank, Balasore and accordingly the retirement benefits should also be extended to him taking into consideration his past service in the Central Co-operative Bank. On the basis of this resolution, Shri Dora contended that the petitioner had been given promotion considering his past service in the Central Co-operative Bank, Balasore and accordingly the retirement benefits should also be extended to him taking into consideration his past service in the Central Co-operative Bank. Reliance is also placed by the peti¬tioner on a similar resolution passed by the Cadre Committee dead 22.10.1999. Relying on all the aforesaid decisions/resolutions Sri Dora further contended that in the matter of promotion,pay scale etc., the resolution of the Cadre Committee having been implemented, there is no reason as to why the said resolutions should not be extended to the petitioner so far as the retirement benefits are concerned. It was also contented by Shri Dora that had this benefit not been promised while considering the absorp¬tion of the petitioner, the petitioner might not have consented for joining in the service of the Orissa State Co-operative Bank Limited. Shri Bijan Ray, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that the petitioner had not been placed above Shri N.C. Das and Shri N.K. Prusty in the final gradation list on the basis of his past service in the Central Co-operative Bank, Balasore. As per the gradation list published by the bank on 1.10.1981 and 1.3.1991 the date of entry of the petitioner in the bank service was recorded as 23.10.1999. No objection was raised by the petitioner in this regard and therefore, it cannot be said that his past service in the Central Co-operative Bank had been taken into consideration for the purposes of seniority. It was also contended by Shri Ray that the post of Additional General Manager is a selection post and the petitioner was found suitable for appointment to the said post and therefore it has got nothing to do with the promotion on the basis of seniority of the petitioner considering his past service in the District Central Co-operative Bank, Balasore. It was also contended by Shri Ray that the post of Additional General Manager is a selection post and the petitioner was found suitable for appointment to the said post and therefore it has got nothing to do with the promotion on the basis of seniority of the petitioner considering his past service in the District Central Co-operative Bank, Balasore. So far as the resolutions on which much reliance was placed by the peti¬tioner are concerned, it was contented by Shri Ray that by reso¬lution dated 13.3.2000 the Cadre Committee superseded all the previous resolutions passed by the Central Cadre Committee, Executive Committee and Managing Committee of the Bank in respect of reckoning the qualifying service period of the employees for the purpose of retirement benefits and it was resolved to treat the service period of employees in the State Co-operative Bank only irrespective of the manner of their recruitment/induction to the OSCB cadre for the purpose of retirement or any other benefit given or likely to be given. Shri Ray also relied on the Audit Report of 1999-2000 in which it is mentioned that as per resolu¬tion of the Cadre Committee dated 23.9.1978 the suggestion for payment of Rs. 1,34,081/- out of the funds of OSCB against the gratuity claimed by the petitioner for the period of service in the Balasore Central Co-operative Bank up to 22.10.1999 had been accepted. Subsequently, it was found that the petitioner was not entitled to and it would create a wrong precedent for which a decision was taken to recover the same. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, I am of the view that a careful scrutiny of different resolutions passed by the Cadre Committee is required to be made. In Annexure-1 the petitioner had been intimated to submit his option for absorption in O.S.C.B. and pursuant to such letter, the petitioner submitted his consent in Annexure-4 is a resolution on which much reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The said resolution is quoted below : “Copy of resolution No.2 from the Proceedings of the Cadre Committee Meeting held on 23.09.1978/8. 6. According to the petitioner, his past service was considered and in the gradation list dated 1.3.1991 he had been placed above Shri N.C. Das in the post of Deputy General Manager. The said resolution is quoted below : “Copy of resolution No.2 from the Proceedings of the Cadre Committee Meeting held on 23.09.1978/8. 6. According to the petitioner, his past service was considered and in the gradation list dated 1.3.1991 he had been placed above Shri N.C. Das in the post of Deputy General Manager. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he was given promotion and before his retirement another resolution was passed on 22.10.1999 by the Cadre Committee reiterating the earlier resolu¬tion dated 23.9.1978. In the counter affidavit it is contended that the petitioner had never been given promotion on the basis of his seniority considering the past service in the Central Co-operative Bank, Balasore. On the other hand, it is contended that the promotional post being a selection post, the petitioner was found suitable in the selection and had been given appointment. It is also contended in the counter affidavit that the resolu¬tions dated 23.9.1978 and 22.10.1999 on which much reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been super¬seded by the Cadre Committee in its resolution dated 13.3.2000. The resolution dated 13.3.2000 is quoted below : “In supersession of all previous resolutions passed in the Central Cadre Committee, Executive Committee and Managing Commit¬tee of the Bank in respect of reckoning the qualifying service period of the employees for the purpose of retirement benefits, it is resolved to treat the service period of employees in the State Cooperative Bank only irrespective of the manner of their recruitment/induction to the OSCB cadre for the purpose of re¬tirement or any other benefits given or likely to be given. Accordingly, the provision of Staff Service Rule, 1980, in Clause 2(f) be amended and the rules in Annexure-G relating to the common cadre of Key Personnel of the CCBs and OSCB is repealed. M.D. is authorized to move the competent authority for amendment”. 7. The resolution dated 23.9.1978 indicates that a decision had been taken to the effect that any liability of the previous services of the petitioner shall be met by the Central Co-operative Bank giving appointment to him. Further, while considering the promotional aspects, pay scale, retirement bene¬fits and other benefits of service, the past services of the petitioner shall be taken into account subject to the Cadre Rules of the Bank. Further, while considering the promotional aspects, pay scale, retirement bene¬fits and other benefits of service, the past services of the petitioner shall be taken into account subject to the Cadre Rules of the Bank. The resolution dated 22.10.1999 indicates that the past service period in the Central Co-operative Bank, Balasore shall be counted for sanction of all retirement benefits like gratuity and pension. This resolution is challenged in the coun¬ter affidavit stating that there was no need for such resolution, if such benefits were made available to the petitioner in the resolution dated 23.9.1978 and just before his retirement the petitioner has influenced the Cadre Committee to pass such a resolution. However, there is also no dispute in the resolution dated 13.3.2000 the Cadre Committee superseded the above two resolutions on which much reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and passed a fresh resolu¬tion. Now the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner having been intimated about the benefits likely to be given while serving in the OSCB, the said benefits could be taken away after his retirement by way of another reso¬lution. The learned counsel appearing for both the parties have not relied upon any decision in this regard. The resolution dated 23.9.1978 clearly says that the past services of the petitioner shall be considered for the purpose of retirement benefits and other benefits of service subject to Cadre Rules of the Bank. Even accepting the contention of Shri Ray that just before retirement the petitioner influenced the Cadre Committee to adopt a resolution on 22nd October, 1999, the Court cannot ignore the resolution adopted by the same Cadre Committee on 23rd September, 1978. The resolution dated 23rd September, 1978 had been passed by the Cadre Committee which was competent to do so and the benefits promised under the said resolution to the petitioner cannot be refused by taking recourse to a resolution passed by the Cadre Committee on 13.3.2000. It is pertinent to note that the said resolution dated 23rd September, 1978 remained in opera¬tion for about two decades and the Cadre Committee never modified the said resolution during that time. Only after retirement of the petitioner, when a claim was made for consideration of his past services towards retirement benefits, such a resolution has been adopted in March, 2000. Only after retirement of the petitioner, when a claim was made for consideration of his past services towards retirement benefits, such a resolution has been adopted in March, 2000. Moreover, the resolution dated 13.3.2000 can have only the prospective effect and, therefore, does not affect the petitioner in any way. I am, therefore of the view that the past services of the petitioner in the Central Co-operative Bank, Balasore have to be considered for the purpose of retirement benefits in terms of the resolution dated 23rd Septem¬ber, 1978. 8. I accordingly allow the writ application and direct that the past services of the petitioner in the Central Co-opera¬tive Bank, Balasore be taken to consideration for the purpose of retirement benefits and the differential amounts be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of six months. Application allowed.