Judgment :- Prayer in these Writ Petitions is to direct the 1st Respondent-Bank to pay pension to the retired employees of the Bank. 2. First Respondent Bank is a Co-operative Society carrying on banking business. The main object being dispensation of financial credit for agricultural operations through the net work of Central Co-operative Banks and the District level and Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks at the grass root level. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) is the financing bank for the 1st Respondent Bank. 3. Factual background which led to the filing of these Writ Petitions are as follows:- .(i) In 1991, 1st Respondent Management of TNSC Bank entered into Sec.12(3) settlement with the then Composite Trade Union (Employees Union) and as per the terms of settlement the Management has agreed to introduce pension scheme known as "TNSC Bank Contributory Super Annuation pension Scheme". As per this scheme each employee will contribute 2.5% of his pay towards the fund and Management will make matching contribution to this fund. Accordingly, 1st Respondent Management had created a Pension Corpus with LIC and invested the fund in the Corpus. .(ii) To administer and manage Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Superannuation Pension scheme, a trust was constituted by a Trust deed dated 23. 1992 comprising of seven Trustees. Notwithstanding the date of trust deed, the scheme shall be deemed to have taken effect from 01. 1991. Constitution of pension trust was also approved by the Income Tax department and income for the trust was also exempted from income tax. Even though, contributions were made and corpus was created with LIC, no pension payment was made under the above scheme. (iii) During 1996, 1st Respondent Bank had entered into settlement with Trade Unions agreeing to modify the Pension scheme to "TNSC Bank Employees" Pension Scheme" with the following salient features. a) Along with the ordinary annual contribution, an initial contribution for the past service of all the staffs from the date of joining the Bank till 312. 1990 with interest till 33. 1998 amounting to Rs.3,53,02,218/- was added to the Corpus. b) Further an initial contribution of Rs.10.00 crores was earmarked for the pension corpus and the same was kept under undisbursed profit for necessary Government approval. 1990 with interest till 33. 1998 amounting to Rs.3,53,02,218/- was added to the Corpus. b) Further an initial contribution of Rs.10.00 crores was earmarked for the pension corpus and the same was kept under undisbursed profit for necessary Government approval. c) It was further agreed by the parties to the settlement that one crore from the net profit of the Bank every year to the added to pension corpus. The Bank has also agreed to pump in adequate funds as and when required. d) Lastly, effective date of pension payment was fixed as 1. 1997 for all the retirees who had retired from the Bank on or after 1. 1991 i.e. pension shall be payable w.e.f. 01. 1997. e) Under the revised Pension Scheme both the Bank and the Trade Unions had agreed that Pension will be 50% of last drawn salary of the employee. .(iv) Though, Rs.10.00 crores was kept under undisbursed profit (UDP), the amount was not passed on to LIC. On 011. 1998, Bank paid Rs.3.00 crores into Pension Corpus. The amount recovered from the monthly salary of the employees towards Pension Corpus along with contribution of the Bank had been regularly remitted to the LIC. Now about Rs.31.17 crores is said to be with LIC towards pension corpus. .(v) The bank has paid 25% of last drawn salary to retired employees from February 1997 to June 2003 and about 121 retired employees were given adhoc pension. Later the adhoc pension was not extended to the subsequent employees who had retired from June 2003 which resulted into filing of W.P.No.27318/2004. In April 2005, the adhoc pension paid to 121 retired employees was also stopped which also resulted in filing of W.P.No.36632/2006. By the order dated 24. 2006, Justice K. Suguna has passed an interim order directing to grant interim pension at the rate of 15% to all the pensioners from April 2006. Accordingly, pension is paid at the rate of 15% as on date. .(vi) When the Writ Petitions came up for final hearing, during December 2006, after hearing the submissions of all the parties, the Court appointed 15 members committee inclusive of representative of the Writ Petitioners Pensioner Association and the Respondents 1 to 4 and the committee had been directed to find feasibility of payment of pension at 25% of last drawn salary as per the original Sec.12(3) settlement. (vii) The expert committee-Additional Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food & Consumer Protection Department as Convenor held meeting and submitted report. Though the employees had agreed to have 25% for the last drawn salary in lieu of 50% as originally provided in Sec.12(3) settlement, but the Management had agreed to give only 15. % to the employees as pension. In view of Chasm, the Convenor of the Committee was constrained to file no consensus report. (viii) The point falling for consideration is that "What could be the quantum of the pension payable to the employees by the 1st Respondent Bank? and Whether it is 25% as demanded by the employees or at 17.5% as agreed by the 1st Respondent Bank Management. 4. Resisting the Writ Petitions, Respondents have filed counter respectively. The 1st Respondent raised objection as to the maintainability of the Writ Petition. According to the 1st Respondent the pension scheme is not provided in the by-laws or in Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act or Rules. If the pension is to be paid as agreed, then capital base will be eroded and 1st Respondent cannot afford to fritter away its working capital. 5. Maintainability of Writ Petitions:- On behalf of the 1st Respondent Bank, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vijay Narayan has raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions. Learned Senior Counsel inter alia has raised the following contentions:- =First Respondent Bank cannot be characterized as State within the meaning of Art.12 of Constitution of India and the function of the 1st Respondent Bank cannot be termed as similar or closely related to those performable by the State in the sovereign capacity. =Subject matter of Writ Petitions relate to payment of pension at 50% of the wages as against the contribution of 2.5% by the employees arising out of the settlement signed by the then Special Officer of the Bank, which is basically a bipartite settlement entered by the Bank u/s.12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act which the Bank is not able to fulfill because of heavy financial commitment and therefore, there is no violation of any statutory provisions in this regard. =Payment of pension is in the nature of labour dispute under Industrial Disputes Act or in the nature of Arbitration claim before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies u/s.90 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. =Payment of pension is in the nature of labour dispute under Industrial Disputes Act or in the nature of Arbitration claim before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies u/s.90 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. When efficacious alternative remedy is available, there are no special circumstances as to warranting intervention by the High Court under Art.226 of Constitution. 6. Contending that service conditions as spelt out in the bylaws of Co-operative Societies can alone be enforced, learned Senior Counsel urged that the settlement made under Industrial Disputes Act contrary to the provisions in Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and Rules have no enforceability. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel for the 1st Respondent has placed reliance upon 2002 (4) CTC 385 [Justine v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies] wherein Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- "The principle of law that the service conditions of the employees of Co-operative Societies must be set out in the bylaws of the societies and that the settlements u/s.12 or Sec.18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, have got no statutory force and are unenforceable." 7. The learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance upon unreported Judgment in W.A.No.247/2000 [A. Mohankumar v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies) wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as under:- "Until the exercise is made in accordance with the directions (in the case of Justine v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies) no action either to withhold the salary or recovery by way of surcharge shall be enforced." 8. The learned Senior counsel for the 1st Respondent Bank has further urged that the Labour Court will be the proper forum to hear both sides, take evidences and arrive at the exact rate of pension that would be reasonable and justifiable and the Petitioners have approached the High Court without exhausting the alternative remedy. In support of his contention that the matter containing service conditions of the employee governed by Industrial Disputes Act have to be adjudicated only by the forum created under the said Statute and not otherwise, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon 1995 (5) SCC 75 ; 2004 (3) CTC 1 [Pitchumani v. The management of the Chakara Tyres] and 2005 (1) CTC 1 [Indian Additives Ltd. v. Indian Additives Employees Union]. 9. 9. Placing reliance upon, 1995 (1) LLJ 588 [Madras Labour Union v. Binny Ltd], it was argued that implementation of settlement reached u/s.12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act is not a public duty and no Writ will lie and the terms of settlement cannot be enforced by filing Writ Petitions. Of course, payment of pension arises out of bipartite settlement between the parties. Normally, terms of settlement cannot be enforced by invoking Art.226 of Constitution. Implementation of terms of settlement shall normally lie before the Labour Court and invoking jurisdiction under Art.226 of Constitution of India is not permissible. .10. Though, it is the implementation of terms of bipartite agreement, having regard to the interest of retired employees of 1st Respondent Bank, High Court has seized up the matter. To examine the viability of pension scheme, 15 member committee was constituted. Meeting convened by the Additional Secretary to Government, Co-operative Food and Consumer Protection Department was held on several occasions ranging from January 2002 to September 2008. The Convenor has submitted an elaborate report. The Court has already passed an interim order directing payment of interim pension at the rate of 15% of last drawn salary. .11. General principles that enforcement of terms of bipartite agreement normally lie before the Labour Court may not be applicable to the present case. Whether Writ or Order could be issued under Art.226 of Constitution against the pension fund was the subject matter of consideration of Division Bench of Bombay High Court. In an unreported Judgment in W.P.No.1273/2002 dated 04.04.2003, observing that such a Writ is maintainable against LIC which is a statutory Corporation, Division Bench of Bombay High Court has held as under:- ."26. ..... that the creation of the pension fund flows from the socio-economic obligation of the State and its instrumentalities under the Constitution. The concept of pension is now well known and has been clarified by the Supreme Court time and again. It is not a charity or bounty nor is it gratuitous payment solely dependent on the whim or sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendered long service and is often described as deferred portion of compensation for past service. It is not a charity or bounty nor is it gratuitous payment solely dependent on the whim or sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendered long service and is often described as deferred portion of compensation for past service. In A.I. Reserve Bank Retired Officers Assocn v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0151/1992 the Court observed that it is in fact in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the December of life of a superannuated employee. Such social security plans are consistent with the socioeconomic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The trustees of the pension fund merely act as agent of the employees and employer. Therefore the conduct and action of the 1st Respondent trust are subject to judicial review by this Court....." 12. Observing that Art.226 of Constitution confers wide power on the High Courts to issue Writs in the nature of prerogative Writs, Bench has referred to Dwarkanath v. Income Tax Officer, MANU/SC/0166/1965 wherein it was held as under:- "The arm authority used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement on the fundamental rights. The word Any person or authority used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed. If a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied. 21. Here again we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Commenting on the development of this law, professor De Smith states: "To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty to have been imposed by character, common law, custom or even contract". (Judicial Review of Administrative Act 4th Ed P 540). Commenting on the development of this law, professor De Smith states: "To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty to have been imposed by character, common law, custom or even contract". (Judicial Review of Administrative Act 4th Ed P 540). We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into water tight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available to each injustice wherever it is found. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226. We, therefore, reject the contention urged for the appellants on the maintainability of the writ petition." 13. In the light of the said legal position, though 1st Respondent Bank is not a State or Authority within the meaning of Art.12 of Constitution, Petition for enforcement of obligation of 1st Respondent is maintainable. 14. Though, function of 1st Respondent Bank cannot be termed as similar or close, thus performable by the State, Government do have it say in issuing directions to the 1st Respondent Bank. When the High Court has dealt with the matter for quite some time, Writ Petitions cannot be dismissed as not maintainable. At this distant point of time, it would not be appropriate to direct the parties to seek remedy before the Labour Court. The objection raised as to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions cannot be countenanced. 15. What is the Quantum of pension payable:- Drawing attention of the Court to M/s. Darashaw Actuarial report on Pension of TNSC Employees, Mr.N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners Association has submitted that for paying 25% pension an additional amount of Rs.23.73 crores could be sufficient in addition to Rs.31.17 crores already available with LIC. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that had Rs.10.00 crores earmarked for Pension Corpus been sent to LIC, the amount would have multiplied several times. Drawing attention of Court to the letter of 1st Respondent Bank dated 17. 2007, learned counsel for the Petitioners has further submitted that even according to the Bank, Rs.10.00 crores had been multiplied as Rs.26.50 crores and therefore, there could be no impediment to pay 25% of last drawn salary as pension. Drawing attention of Court to the letter of 1st Respondent Bank dated 17. 2007, learned counsel for the Petitioners has further submitted that even according to the Bank, Rs.10.00 crores had been multiplied as Rs.26.50 crores and therefore, there could be no impediment to pay 25% of last drawn salary as pension. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further urged that when Banks Retiral Expert Committee has opined that 25% of last drawn salary could be paid as pension, suitable direction has to be issued to the 1st Respondent Bank to implement the pension scheme by paying 25% of the last drawn salary. Laying much emphasis upon the letter of the Special Officer dated 17. 2007, learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that payment of 25% could easily be made without any difficulties. 16. Mr. Yasodvardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent-Serving Bank Employees has submitted that while passing direction, Court has to keep in view that any direction is not to deplete the corpus of the Bank lest it would affect payment of pension to the employees who are retiring in future. The learned Senior counsel further urged that any direction could be issued only keeping in view the interest of the Bank and the serving employees. 17. Mr. G. Nagarajan, learned counsel for the 4th Respondent-Bank Officers Association has submitted that in the letter dated 17. 2007 when the Bank has stated that Rs.10.00 crores was not kept idle and that the same was utilised in bank business and the bank earned adequate profits, payment of 25% could be easily made. Laying much emphasis upon the letter dated 17. 2007, learned counsel for the 4th Respondent has submitted that the letter of Special Officer would make it clear that payment of 25% could be easily made without any financial constraints. 18. Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior counsel for the 1st Respondent Bank has submitted that the scheme is not viable and any scheme to be successful has to be self sustaining. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that exercising jurisdiction under Art.226 of Constitution of India, Court does not have expertise to go into the fiscal aspects and pass orders in respect of the percentage payable towards pension. 19. As per Sec.12(3) settlement, pension is payable at the rate of 50% of last drawn salary to those employees who retired from service on and after 1. 1991. 19. As per Sec.12(3) settlement, pension is payable at the rate of 50% of last drawn salary to those employees who retired from service on and after 1. 1991. Regulation 15 to 19 of Chapter III of the said settlement provides various kinds of pension payable to the employees. Regulation 20 and 21 of Chapter IV of the said settlement provides for the rate of pension agreed to be paid to the employees. Chapter V of the said settlement provides for Family pension. Chapter VI of the said settlement provides for payment of Dearness Allowance Relief. Chapter VII of the said settlement provides for General conditions. 20. As per the settlement, Bank Pensioners Association seek for payment of 50% of the last drawn salary. During the meeting held by the Convenor, representatives of the Union have demanded pension at the rate of 25% to 35%. The management of the Bank expressed their difficulties in acceding to the representations of the employees citing Banks commitment, which the bank would have to meet, in case pension is paid at the rates demanded. Pointing out its commitment as projected by the LIC, Management indicated that it may not be possible for the bank to increase the rates further. However, at the instance of the Convenor, to bring amicable solution to the issue, the Management of the bank agreed for paying pension at the rate of 17.5% subject to the approval of the Government, even though the commitment of the bank could be around Rs.20.00 crores. However, Petitioners Association and the Respondents 2 and 4 have not accepted the banks proposal for payment of pension at the rate of 17.5%. 21. The points falling for consideration are:- 1)What could be the quantum of pension payable to the employees by the 1st Respondent Bank? 2)Whether it is 25% as demanded by the employees or 17.5% as agreed by the 1st Respondent Management? 22. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the 1st Respondent Bank, Court does not have expertise to go into the fiscal aspect and fix the pension. Though, Court may not have expertise, the report of the Convenor (after holding elaborate discussions with the Association and the Bank) and opinion of the Financial Expert – M/s. Darashaw Broking and Investment Banking are available for consideration of financial implications and other aspects. Though, Court may not have expertise, the report of the Convenor (after holding elaborate discussions with the Association and the Bank) and opinion of the Financial Expert – M/s. Darashaw Broking and Investment Banking are available for consideration of financial implications and other aspects. It is not as if there are no materials as to the viability and workability of pension scheme. 23. As on date Rs.31.17 crores is available with LIC. Though Rs.10.00 crores was earmarked to the Pension Corpus Fund, the same was not sent to LIC. Bank has utilized the said sum of Rs.10.00 crores and earned profits out of the same. In its letter dated 17. 2007, the bank has stated that from out of Rs.10.00 crores, bank has earned profits and the sum is said to have swelled up as Rs.26.50 crores. 24. Drawing attention of Court to M/s. Darashaw report, learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. N.G.R. Prasad has contended that for payment of pension at the rate of 25% in addition to the corpus available with LIC only an amount of Rs.23.73 crores may be required. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that since the Pension Corpus fund of Rs.10.00 crores has now been raised to Rs.26.50 crores in addition to corpus now available with LIC, it may not be difficult for the Bank to pay pension at the rate of 25%. 25. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioners Association would rely upon the following details as projected by M/s. Darashaw in its report: 26. By reading of the letter dated 17. 2007, it is seen that Government in its letter No.24860/CC1/2004-08 dated 03. 2007 has advised the bank to consider possibility of increasing the Pension Corpus Fund from Rs.10.00 crores to Rs.12.00 crores or Rs.13.00 crores and pay pension at 25%. In the said letter, 1st Respondent Bank has made it clear that it would be possible for the Bank to pay pension only at 20% within the quantum earmarked for Pension Corpus fund. 27. The learned counsel for the Petitioners Association has forcibly contended that if Rs.10.00 crores earmarked for Pension Corpus Fund had been invested in LIC, it would have earned more and because of lack of prudent fiscal management, retirees cannot be made to suffer. 27. The learned counsel for the Petitioners Association has forcibly contended that if Rs.10.00 crores earmarked for Pension Corpus Fund had been invested in LIC, it would have earned more and because of lack of prudent fiscal management, retirees cannot be made to suffer. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel for the 1st Respondent bank, it is not as if the amount of Rs.10.00 crores has been kept idle. The same was utilised by the 1st Respondent Bank and Bank has earned interest. 28. The matter was also referred to Actuary M/s.Darashaw & Co., Mumbai. It was found that the existing contribution of the Management and employees at the rate of 2.5% each besides Rs.3.00 crores already contributed by the Bank, out of profit only 12.5% could be given as pension. M/s. Darashaw & Co., has estimated the financial implications of the Bank for payment of pension at different rates and the same is given here under:- (Rs. in Crores) 29. The valuation has been made by LIC. As per the valuation made by LIC, the liability position as on 30.6.208 is as under:- (Rs. in Crores) Pension at different rates 30. According to the Petitioners Association, projection of LIC compared to that of M/s.Darashaw is on the higher side. According to the Petitioners, discount assumed by LIC at 8% is very low. The grievance of the Petitioner is that Rs.10.00 crores allocated for the Pension Corpus Fund was not duly transferred to LIC. It was further argued that though Government has confirmed the allocation of Rs.10.00 crores for pension Corpus Fund, bank has not chosen to transfer the amount and interest on this pension corpus of Rs.10.00 crores is reckoned since 1997 till date, it will be possible to grant pension at 25% of Basic Pay plus Dearness Allowance which would be a viable and sustainable pension proposal. 31. On comparison of valuation made by LIC and M/s. Darashaw, it was mainly argued that if we go by M/s. Darashaw report, the deficit would be only Rs.8.17 crores and that could be offset with left over balance at the end 2026. M/s.Darashaw has appears to have arrived at deficit at Rs.8.17 crores by taking Rs.10.00 crores along with the profits by way of interest at Rs.29.96 crores. 32. In one of its letter dated 07. M/s.Darashaw has appears to have arrived at deficit at Rs.8.17 crores by taking Rs.10.00 crores along with the profits by way of interest at Rs.29.96 crores. 32. In one of its letter dated 07. 2006, the Bank has stated that it has worked out its commitment for payment of pension at the rate of 2.3% of Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance and reported to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. In response, the Registrar, asked the Bank to analyse the future commitments and therefore, bank had to re-think the whole issue. 33. As pointed out earlier, even in the letter dated 17. 2007 while indicating that the bank has earned profit from out of Rs.10.00 crores earmarked for the Pension Corpus Fund, bank has stated that it will be possible for the bank to pay pension only at 20%. The relevant portion of the letter reads as under:- "Though the Government of Tamil Nadu vide its letter has advised the Bank to consider the possibility of increasing the Corpus Fund from Rs.10.00 crores to Rs.12.00 crores or Rs.13.00 crores and pay Pension at 25%, it is possible for the Bank to pay Pension only at 20% within the quantum of Rs.13.00 crores (already earmarked amount of Rs.10.00 crores + Rs.3.00 crores interest)." 34. In the said letter dated 17. 2007, bank has sought for permission of the Government to transfer Rs.23.73 crores to the Pension Corpus Fund of the Bank maintained with LIC to enable the bank to implement the pension scheme successfully. 35. Contending that payment of pension is not only compensation for service rendered in the past and that it is also a measure of socio-economic justice, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon (1983) 1 SCC 305 [D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India]. Observing that pension is not a bounty nor a matter of grace, the Honble Supreme court has held as follows:- "29. Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you give your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison detre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon. ............. 31. From the discussion three things emerge: (i) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution; (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch........." .36. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further argued that right to get pension is crystallized under the rules/settlement and not depending upon the availability of Pension Fund. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon (2001) 8 SCC 71 [Subrata Sen and others v. Union of India and others). In the said case, Petitioners were transferred from Assam Oil Company Ltd. to Indian Oil Corporation. As per Assam Oil Company Staff Pension Fund Scheme, Petitioners were getting pension on the basis – a sum equal to 40% of the average annual basic salary for the last 5 years of service immediately preceding the date of retirement. In such circumstance, it was held that transferee Indian Oil Company was also bound to .pay pension as per the rules. In such circumstance, it was held that transferee Indian Oil Company was also bound to .pay pension as per the rules. Referring to D.S. Nakaras case, the Honble Supreme Court has held that grant of pension is governed by relevant Rules and not depending upon the availability of Pension Fund. The said decision has no bearing to the present case where we are concerned with State Co-operative Bank. 37. First Respondent/Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd. is the Apex body which is primarily concerned with the promotion of Co-operative movement and working for the interest of the members of various Co-operative Banks and other Co-operative Sectors. Any scheme to be sustainable must be self-sustainable. As discussed earlier, as per M/s. Darashaw report and LIC report, the scheme is not self-sustainable. With the constant increase of salary of bank employees directing to pay pension at 25% would be heavy additional burden upon the bank. In these days of global credit crisis and liquidity crunch, it would not be appropriate to saddle the 1st Respondent Bank with heavy additional burden by directing it to pay pension at the rate of 25%. 38. The very concept of pension is stated to be alien to the Co-operative movement in the country. Keeping in view the salary escalation factor, even ordering pension at the rate of 15% as per the valuation made by LIC, the bank will have to incur additional liability of Rs.11.49 crores. If pension is to be paid at 25%, additional liability of the bank would be Rs.45.60 crores. If pension is ordered at the rate of 25%, the functioning of the bank would be crippled by additional liability. Any difficulty of the functioning of the Apex Bank will greatly affect the functioning of the Co-operative Banks including Agricultural banks. 39. While ordering payment of pension, responsibilities of the first Respondent – Apex body of Co-operative Bank and its commitments are also to be kept in view. First Respondent is the Apex body of Co-operative Bank. The main object being dispensation of financial credit for agricultural operations through net work of Central Co-operative Banks at the grass root level. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) is the financing bank for the 1st Respondent bank. .40. First Respondent is the Apex body of Co-operative Bank. The main object being dispensation of financial credit for agricultural operations through net work of Central Co-operative Banks at the grass root level. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) is the financing bank for the 1st Respondent bank. .40. As pointed out earlier, in the meeting convened by the Convenor, 1st Respondent Bank has agreed to pay pension at the rate of 17.5%. In its letter dated 17. 2007, 1st Respondent Bank has categorically stated pension could be paid to the employees at the rate of 20%. The stand of the Bank to pay pension at the rate of 20% is very important aspect to be reckoned with. Keeping in view the duties and responsibilities of the 1st Respondent Bank and the valuation made by both LIC and M/s. Darashaw, interest of justice would met by ordering payment of pension at the rate of 20% of last drawn salary. 41. In the result, W.P.Nos.27318/2004 and 36632/2006 are partly allowed with the following directions:- =First Respondent Bank shall pay 20% of last drawn salary as pension to the retired employees. =Pension shall be paid to all the retired employees at the rate of 20% commencing from October 2008 (payable on 1st November 2008). =Arrears shall be payable to all the retired employees in five monthly instalments. It is made clear that no interest is payable on the arrears of pension payable to the retired employees. =First instalment of arrears of pension shall be payable from 012. 2008. =As stated in its letter dated 12.07.2007, first Respondent Bank shall transfer Rs.23.73 crores to Pension Corpus Fund of the bank maintained with LIC in eight annual instalments. First instalment shall commence from the financial year 2008-2009. 42. W.P.Nos.4043/2005 & 46318/2006:- In the line of the above directions, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of.