Judgment :- Prabha Sridevan, J. The petitioners were originally employees of the Bank of Madura which has since been amalgamated with ICICI Bank, the respondent herein, and they prayed for a writ of mandamus that they should be granted pension in accordance with the Bank of Madura Employees Pension Regulations. The prayer was not granted both on the ground of maintainability and on merits. Hence the employees have filed this appeal. .2. The facts are as follows: .On 30.01.1996, the Bank of Madura introduced for the first time the Bank of Madura Employees Pension Regulations (BoMPR). This was modified in 1999, incorporating provisions relating to the optees of Bank of Madura Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS in short). Then on 10-03-2001, the Scheme of amalgamation of BoM with ICICI came into effect with the sanction of RBI as per the Banking Regulations Act. .3. On 29-06-2001, the representatives of BoM Association and ICICI Bank worked out an agreement to facilitate the integration process and certain clauses of this agreement are relied on by the appellants. On 19-09-2002, another agreement was entered into between the ICICI, Bank Officers Association(BOA) and the ICICI Bank. In this, the earlier settlement is specifically referred to and it also states that all earlier agreements are superceded. In 2003, the appellants agreed to the Early Retirement Option. In 2005, the All India Bank Officers federation issued guidelines for calculating pension as per 8th bipartite settlement. This is the background against which the rights of the parties have to be decided. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that pension is a right which cannot be mutilated. Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked if this right is violated. He referred to various clauses in the Regulations and the Agreement to support his case. He submitted that the Dearness Allowance is the cushion for the pensioners against the rising inflation and that cannot be taken away. There can be no decision by the respondent which adversely affects the right of the BoM Employees. The learned Counsel submitted that it was agreed that the employees who had opted for the pension benefit will be eligible for the same as per the Regulations. There can be no decision by the respondent which adversely affects the right of the BoM Employees. The learned Counsel submitted that it was agreed that the employees who had opted for the pension benefit will be eligible for the same as per the Regulations. It was submitted that the word the "emoluments" would include "dearness allowance" and the Scheme of amalgamation provides that the erstwhile BoM employees will be entitled to receive emoluments which are not less favourable than what they received earlier. He submitted that the deprivation of the right to recive dearness allowance affects the right to life as envisaged in Art. 21. He referred to the following decisions: .(i) AIR 1969 SC 1306 (Praga Tools Corpn. Vs. C.V. Imanual) .(ii) 1999 (3) LLN 310 (A.K. Ansari Vs. Bharat Overseas Ltd.) (iii) W.P.No.32502 of 2003 etc. batch dated 26-11-2008 (V.Kannappan Vs. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs) (iv) 2008 (3) LLN 320 = Manu/TN/0056/2008 (ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Lakshminarayanan) .(v) 2004 SCC (L&S) 214 (Grid Corporation of Orissa Vs. Rasananda Das) (vi) 2005 WLR 820 (N. Venkatramani Vs. Indian Overseas Bank) 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Thomas ( 2003 (10) SCC 733 ). He referred to ICICI Bank Vs. Lakshmi Narayan (2008(3) LLN 320 = Manu/TN/0056/2008), in the case of the same respondent and in respect of the same Pension Regulations, a Division Bench of this Court had held that the writ is not maintainable. He also read out the various agreements to which at least two of the appellants were parties, where mutually acceptable terms have been agreed upon and now the appellant cannot claim anything beyond that. He further submitted that the ICICI Bank does not have a pension Scheme for its employees, and it is only to honour the commitment made to the erstwhile BoM employees that the respondent had decided to continue the existing Scheme. He submitted that it was agreed by the parties that the DA would be merged with the Basic Salary, and after the total merger of the FDA no DA will be apayable. To demand DA after agreeing to this is unacceptable. He submitted that it was agreed by the parties that the DA would be merged with the Basic Salary, and after the total merger of the FDA no DA will be apayable. To demand DA after agreeing to this is unacceptable. He also submitted that actually when the pension was calculated for the petitioners it was found that the pesnsion calculated on the basis of the present Basic Pay was less than the pension payable on the basic pay as received in BoM together with the appropriate increments and DA. So what was paid was according to the latter calculation. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the appellants were adversely affected. He finally submitted that there is no violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the writ must be dismissed both on maintainability and on merits. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments: .(i) 2003 (10) SCC 733 (Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Thomas) .(ii) Manu/TN/0056/2003 = 2008(3)LLN 320 (ICICI Bank Vs. Lakshmi Narayan) (iii) 2005 (6) SCC 637 (Binny Vs. Sadasivan) .(iv) 2004 (3) CTC 1 (P. Pitchumani Vs. Management & Anrs) .(v) 2005 (2) CTC 55 (Nadar Sangam Vs. RBI & Others) .(vi) 2006 (1) CTC 776 (Nadar Sangam Vs. RBI & Others) (vii) 2006 (11) SCC 634 (S. S. Rana Vs. Registrar & Other) (viii) 1991 (2) SCC 104 (Indian Ex-Service & Others Vs. Union of India) .(ix) 1997 (6) SCC 7 (K.L. Rathee Vs. Union of India) .(x) 2006 (13) SCC 215 (K.S. Krishnaswami Vs. Union of India) .(xi) 1994 (Supp.) (2) SCC 108 (Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation & Other) 6. The important extracts from the various documents relied on are as follows. (i) In BoM Regulations, "w) Retirement means cessation from Banks service,- i) ... ii) on voluntary retirement in accordance with provisions contained in regulation of these regulations; .. ze) V.R.S. means Bank of Madura Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme enclosed to the circular CO.STF:39/94-95 dated July 21, 1994, or any other specific scheme that may be implemented in future bringing such scheme under the definition of this regulation. ii) on voluntary retirement in accordance with provisions contained in regulation of these regulations; .. ze) V.R.S. means Bank of Madura Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme enclosed to the circular CO.STF:39/94-95 dated July 21, 1994, or any other specific scheme that may be implemented in future bringing such scheme under the definition of this regulation. The employees who have completed 20 years of service in the bank and who have retired subsequent to the expiry of the scheme mentioned in the Circular CO:GM:CIR:2/93-94 dated May 20, 1993 and who were extended the additional benefits in addition to the normal retirement benefits shall be deemed and considered to have retired under V.R.S." 36. Amount of Pension: .(1) In respect of employees who retired between the 1st day of January 1986, but before the 31st day on October 1987, basic pension and additional pension will be updated as per the formula given in Appendix-I .(2) In the case of an employee retiring in accordance with the provisions of the Service Rules or Settlement after completing a qualifying service of not less than thirty three years the amount of basic pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of the average emoluments. .(3) (a) Additional pension shall be fifty per cent of the average amount of the allowances drawn by an employee during the last ten months of his services; .(b) no dearness relief shall be paid on the amount of additional pension. ... 38. Dearness Relief: .(1) Dearness relief shall be granted on basic pension or family pension or invalid pension or an compassionate allowance or on pension to employees retiring under VRS in accordance with the rates specified in Appendix II. .(2) Dearness relief shall be allowed on full basic pension even after commutation. .(3) (a) Additional pension shall be fifty per cent of the average amount of the allowances drawn by an employee during the last ten months of his service; .(b) no dearness relief shall be paid on the amount of additional pension. Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-regulation "allowances" means allowances which an admissible to the extent counted for making contributions to the Provident Fund. 39. Determination of the period of ten months for average emoluments:- .(1) The period of the proceeding ten months for the purpose of average emoluments shall be reckoned from the date of retirement. Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-regulation "allowances" means allowances which an admissible to the extent counted for making contributions to the Provident Fund. 39. Determination of the period of ten months for average emoluments:- .(1) The period of the proceeding ten months for the purpose of average emoluments shall be reckoned from the date of retirement. .(2) In the case of voluntary retirement of premature retirement or employees retiring under VRS the period of the preceeding ten months for the purpose of average emoluments shall be reckoned from the date on which the employee voluntarily retires or is premature retired by the Bank or the employee retired under VRS as the case may be. .(3) In the case of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement or termination of service the period of the preceeding ten months for the purpose of average emoluments shall be reckoned from the date on which the employee is dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired or terminated by the Bank. .(4) If during the last ten months of the service an employee had been absent from duty on extraordinary leave on loss of pay or had been under suspension and the period whereof does not count as service, the aforesaid period of extraordinary leave or suspension shall not be taken into account in the calculation of the average emoluments and an equal period before the ten months shall be included. 9. All the employees of the Transferor Bank in service on the Effective Date shall become the employees of the Transferee Bank on such date without any break or interruption in service and on emoluments which are not less favourable than those subsisting with reference to the Transferor bank as on the Effective Date. ii)In Memorandum of Settlement dated 27-10-1999, iii) The pension amount shall be calculated based on average emoluments i.e., average of pay drawn by an employee during the last ten months of his service as per Regulation 39. However, subsequent wage revisions shall be given effect to notionally to arrive at the average emoluments." (iii) In the RBI’s order dated 26th February 2001 Ref.No.DBOD.No.PSBS. 725/16.01.128/2000-2001, "Agreement between the representatives of Bank of Madura Officers Association and ICICI Bank: ... The eBoM structure has a component of variable DA linked to Consumer Price Index which is absent in the ICICI Bank structure. 725/16.01.128/2000-2001, "Agreement between the representatives of Bank of Madura Officers Association and ICICI Bank: ... The eBoM structure has a component of variable DA linked to Consumer Price Index which is absent in the ICICI Bank structure. While there are varied number of allwoance in eBoM not linked to the performance, a significant portion of compensation come through performance linked bonus in ICICI Bank. .. Against this backdrop the new compensation structure is designed. The new structure will be effective from July 1, 2001. This is a major step in the integration process now underway. .. .•As a second step, the FDA (FDA+3.5% of the Basic) will be divided in three equal parts. One part so arrived at will be added to the Basic pay and balance amount will be paid as FDA for the year. .•Inflation neutralisation worked out on the above formula will be for a period of three years i.e. till the time the FDA gets fully merged with Basic salary. While calculating neutralisation, the Basic Pay will be the one as described above without adding performance-linked rise in Basic salary, if any, earned by the officers. Examples have been given as to how it is calculated. (iii) Provident Fund/Pension Fund Provident Fund contribution by the officer and the Bank is currently @ 10% of Basic salary. For those who have opted for Pension, the Banks contribution is credited to the Pension Fund. It is decided to continue the existing scheme for the time being. It is however intended to offer the scheme obtainable in ICICI Bank to the eBoM officers. Keeping in mind the complexities involved in calculations and the cost impact it is decided to engage a reputed Actuarial Firm to help the Bank in arriving at appropriate decision. It is expected that by the end of March 2002 a clear picture will emerge for taking a view on the retirement benefits. Till such time the new scheme is made applicable on mutual acceptance, the existing scheme would continue. (iv) IBA Settlement The new compensation structure and service conditions are quite different from the IBA structure. It is also a much higher package. This is a significant change in the compensation structure which was successfully conceived through mutual discussions. Till such time the new scheme is made applicable on mutual acceptance, the existing scheme would continue. (iv) IBA Settlement The new compensation structure and service conditions are quite different from the IBA structure. It is also a much higher package. This is a significant change in the compensation structure which was successfully conceived through mutual discussions. Any change to this package or any change to any other related matter will be after mutual discussions and agreement, irrespective of any present or future IBA settlements and or guidelines or any other agreements, understandings with eBoM officers by the earlier establishment in this regard. .(v) Agreement between the representatives of ICICI Bank Officers Association and ICICI Bank The representatives of the above parties have arrived at an understanding on January 16, 2001 and June 29, 2001. While the agreement of January 16, 2001 helped create an atmosphere of trust and understanding to facilitate integration process between the erstwhile Bank of Madura and ICICI Bank, the agreement of June 29, 2001, details steps taken in respect of integration on aspects like Compensation structure linked to performance, Service Conditions and Code of Conduct. The parties have all along enjoyed each others confidence and trust and have maintained an atmosphere of cordial relations over period. The parties agree that there is a need to arrive at an understanding and re-write the agreements due to significant development during the intervening period. The merger of ICICI Ltd., ICICI PFS Ltd., and ICICI Capital Services Ltd., with ICICI bank has necessitated arriving at new understanding between the parties such that this integration process runs smoothly. With this end in view, the representatives of the parties met on various dates and held detailed discussions. As a result of these, the representatives met again on September19, 2002 at Mumbai and have arrived at an agreement annexed hereto. THis agreement supercedes all the previous understandings/agreements/practices in respect of compensation structure, promotion process, and other matters referred to in the agreement annexed. The Code of Conduct described in the agreement of June 29, 2001 and circulated vide circular No.ICBK/HRD/2001-2002/1899 of September 29, 2001 remains unchanged. The parties agree to continue to work with the same level of understanding for the growth of the organisation and its employees. (vi) Agreement dated September 19, 2002 between the representatives of ICICI Bank Officers Association and ICICI Bank 1. The parties agree to continue to work with the same level of understanding for the growth of the organisation and its employees. (vi) Agreement dated September 19, 2002 between the representatives of ICICI Bank Officers Association and ICICI Bank 1. The compensation structure of the officers of erstwhile Bank of Madura (eBoM) in the grade of Assistant Manager and above, will now be aligned with the structure of the other employees in the similar grades. There will be no change in the basic salary on this alignment, except the amount of Fixed Dearness Allowance (FDA) drawn by these officers will be emerged in the Basic salary effective from October 1, 2002. On the merger of FDA, as above, no FDA will be payable. (vii)Under Early Retirement Option 2003 (ERO) dated June 17, 2003, 8D Pension Benefit The Eligible Employees who have opted for pension benefit as per the erstwhile Bank of Madura Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, will be eligible for the same as per the terms and conditions of the said Regulations. (viii) All India Bank Officers Confederation sent a Circular No.43 to all the affiliates/members dated 2nd July, 2005 "Dearness Relief on basic pension computed as above shall be at rates as given in Annexure – III to this Circular." 7. The relevant portions from the decisions cited before us are as follows: (a) AIR 1969 SC 1306 (cited supra) Article 226 provides that every High Court shall have power to issue to any person or authority orders and writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus etc., or any of them for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose. But it is well understood that a mandamus lies to secure the performance of a public or statutory duty in the performance of which the one who applies for it has a sufficient legal interest.... Therefore, the condition precedent for the issue of mandamus is that there is in one claiming it a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by one against whom it is sought. An order of mandamus is, in form, a command directed to a person, corporation or an inferior tribunal requiring him or them to do a particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. An order of mandamus is, in form, a command directed to a person, corporation or an inferior tribunal requiring him or them to do a particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. It is, however, not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed need be a public official or an official body. (b) 1999 3 LLN 310 (cited supra) Constitution of India, Art.226- Bharat Overseas Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995 – Writ-petitioners/appellants filing writ petition claiming pension, arrears of basic pay and dearness allowance – A learned Single Judge holding the writ petition maintainable but dismissing their claims – Hence these writ appeals – The principal question is whether writ petitions against the respondent private bank is maintainable at the instance of the employees of the bank claiming pension, etc. - After analysing the pronouncements in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court and of the Division Benches of High Court, the Court held that the appellants have no alternative or efficacious remedy except to invoke the writ jurisdiction of High Court – Right of pension is a matter of livelihood – Denial of such livelihood definitely offends the Constitution and this situation is monstrous in respect of retirees who lead a frugal life – Order of learned Single Judge holding in writ petition maintainable affirmed. From the above discussion, several principles were distilled, the relevant ones for this case are: .(1) ....... .(2) ......... .(3) ............ (4)...... (5)......... .(6) The framework of service regulations made in the appropriate rules or regulations should be consistent with and subject to the same public law, principles and limitations. .(7) ...... .(8) ........... (9)...... .(10) The instrumentality, agency or person must have an element of authority or ability to effect the relations with its employees or public by virtue of power vested in it by law, memorandum of association or bye-laws or articles of association. .(11) The instrumentality, agency or person renders an element of public service and is accountable to health and strength of the workers, men and women, adequate means of livelihood, the security for payment of living wages, reasonable conditions of work, decent standard of life and opportunity to enjoy full leisure and social and cultural activities to the workman. .(12) ............... .(11) The instrumentality, agency or person renders an element of public service and is accountable to health and strength of the workers, men and women, adequate means of livelihood, the security for payment of living wages, reasonable conditions of work, decent standard of life and opportunity to enjoy full leisure and social and cultural activities to the workman. .(12) ............... .(13) If the exercise of the power is arbitrary, unjust and unfair, the public authority, instrumentality, agency or the person acting in public interest, though in the field of private law, is not free to prescribe any unconstitutional conditions or limitations in their actions." The Division Bench held that the writ petition was mainatainable against the Bank in the facts and circumstances. (c) In W.P.No.32502 of 2003 dated 26-11-2008 which was against the same respondent, the learned Single Judge held that the writ was maintainable. The following two paragraphs are relevant. "35. By analysis of the above decisions, it emerges that powers under Art.226 of Constitution is very wide and powers are to be exercised by applying Constitutional provisions and if there is violation of fundamental rights or statutory provisions or arbitrariness in discharging the public duty when there is public law element involved. Of course, in the matter of employment of workers by private companies on the basis of contracts entered between them, Courts have been reluctant to exercise power of judicial review and whenever powers were exercised as against the private employers it was solely done based on public law element involved therein. 26. In the present case, it is the case of payment of Pension to number of employees. Payment of Pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will of the employer. As held by the Apex Court, it is the proprietary right under Art.31(1) and 19(1)(f) of Constitution. It is the measure of social security. Though Pension is often described as deferred portion of compensation over the past service, it is in fact in the nature of social security plan to provide for evening life of superannuated employee. As held by the Apex Court, it is the proprietary right under Art.31(1) and 19(1)(f) of Constitution. It is the measure of social security. Though Pension is often described as deferred portion of compensation over the past service, it is in fact in the nature of social security plan to provide for evening life of superannuated employee. Such social security plan are concerned with socio-economic requirements of the Constitution." (d) 2004 SCC L&S 214 (cited supra) "Conditions of service – Alteration of – Held, cannot be altered to the disadvantage of the employees by reducing their pay scales or withdrawing any service benefit – But there is no bar to offer such employees better prospects – .. – There cannot be two types of pay scales, one for the purpose of continuing in service up to the age of retirement and the other for the period between 58 and 60 years – Pension is not a bounty but a hard-earned benefit for long service, which cannot be taken away – Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, S.60" (e) 2005 WLR 820 (cited supra) 22. When the above consistent ratio of the Honble Supreme Court as well that of the English cases are applied to the case on hand, we have no hesitation in holding that the interpretation made by us in the earlier paragraphs of the order would alone achieve the object and purport of the Regulation especially when the petitioner had put in as many as 14 years, 9 months and 17 days and by construing his last spell of employment of 9 months and 17 days as one full year, he would be well within his rights to claim pension as provided under the amended Regulation 28 of the Indian Bank Voluntary Employees Pension Regulations, 1995. Therefore, the contrary stand of the respondent in the impugned order dated 22-3-2003 is liable to be set aside. (f) 2003 10 SCC 733 (cited supra) "Private companies would normally not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But in certain circumstances a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutes which need to be complied with by all concerned including the private companies. (f) 2003 10 SCC 733 (cited supra) "Private companies would normally not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But in certain circumstances a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutes which need to be complied with by all concerned including the private companies. For example, there are certain legislations like the Industrial Disputes Act, the Minimum Wages Act the Factories Act or for maintaining proper environment say Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 etc. or statutes of the like nature which fasten certain duties and responsibilities statutorily upon such private bodies which they are bound to comply with. If they violate such a statutory provision a writ would certainly be issued for compliance of those provisions. For instance, if a private employer dispense with the service of its employee in violation of the provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act, in innumerable cases the High Court interfered and have issued the writ to the private bodies and the companies in that regard. But the difficulty in issuing a writ may arise where there may not be any noncompliance or violation of any statutory provision by the private body. In that event a writ may not be issued at all. Other remedies, as may be available, may have to be resorted to. Merely because the Reserve Bank of India lays the banking policy in the interest of the banking system or in the interest of monetary stability or sound economic growth having due regard to the interests of the depositors etc. as provided under Section 5(c)(a) of the Banking Regulation Act does not mean that the private companies carrying on the business of or commercial activity of banking, discharge any public function or public duty. These are all regulatory measures applicable to those carrying on commercial activity in banking and these companies are to act according to these provisions failing which certain consequences follow as indicated in the Act itself. Provision regarding acquisition of a banking company by the Government, it may be pointed out that any private property can be acquired by the Government in public interest. It is now judicially accepted norm that private interest has to give way to the public interest. Provision regarding acquisition of a banking company by the Government, it may be pointed out that any private property can be acquired by the Government in public interest. It is now judicially accepted norm that private interest has to give way to the public interest. If a private property is acquired in public interest it does not mean that the party whose property is acquired is performing or discharging any function or duty of public character though it would be so for acquiring authority. Therefore, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or public duty." (g) MANU/TN/0056/2008 = 2008(3)LLN 320 (cited supra) "17. In the present case also, as the appellant-Bank of Madura Ltd., is a private Company, carrying on private banking business and not carrying on any statutory or public duty, no "Writ Petition" under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the appellant-Bank of Madura Ltd. Merely because the Bank has made provisions to grant "pension" on VRS, under the relevant Pension Scheme, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the Bank is performing a public duty or public function. Hence, the first question is answered in the negative against the respondent-Writ Petitioner and in favour of the appellant-Bank of Madura Ltd. (now ICICI Bank Ltd.)." (h) 2005 6 SCC 657 (cited supra) "A writ of mandamus or the remedy under Article 226 is pre-eminently a public law remedy and it is available against a body or person performing a public law function and is not generally available as a remedy against private wrongs. It is used for enforcement of various rights of the public or to compel public/statutory authorities to discharge their duties and to act within their bounds. It may be used to do justice when there is wrongful exercise of power or a refusal to perform duties. This writ is admirably equipped to serve as a judicial control over administrative actions. This writ can also be issued against any private body or person, specially in view of the words used in Article 226 of the Constitution. However, such private authority must be discharging a public function and the decision sought to be corrected or enforced must be in discharge of a public function. .... This writ can also be issued against any private body or person, specially in view of the words used in Article 226 of the Constitution. However, such private authority must be discharging a public function and the decision sought to be corrected or enforced must be in discharge of a public function. .... ...There must be a public law element and it cannot be exercised to enforce purely private contracts entered into between the parties. A contract would not become statutory simply because it is for construction of a public utility and it has been awarded by a statutory body. But nevertheless it may be noticed that the Government or Government authorities at all levels is increasingly employing contractual techniques to achieve its regulatory aims. It cannot be said that the exercise of those powers are free from the zone of judicial review and that there would be no limits to the exercise of such powers, but in normal circumstances, judicial review principles cannot be used to enforce the contractual obligations. When that contractual power is being used for public purpose, it is certainly amenable to judicial review. The power must be used for lawful purposes and not unreasonably." (i) 2004 3 CTC 1 (cited supra) "14. When that contractual power is being used for public purpose, it is certainly amenable to judicial review. The power must be used for lawful purposes and not unreasonably." (i) 2004 3 CTC 1 (cited supra) "14. In view of what is stated supra, we hold that .(i) only such violations under I.D. Act, which involve public duties, are amenable to Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India; .(ii) dismissals, transfers and other matters concerning the service conditions of employees governed by I.D. Act, have to be adjudicated only by the forums created under the said statute and not otherwise; (iii) it is needless to mention that the disputes relating to matters not governed by I.D. Act have to be resolved only by common law Courts; (iv) the transfers effected in these cases do not involve any public duties and involve the disputed questions of fact and they should be resolved only before the forums under the I.D. Act; .(v) the appellants/petitioners-employees shall be entitled to seek for reference by filing application under Section 10 of the ID Act within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; .(vi) if any industrial disputes are raised, then the concerned forums, be it Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, shall dispose of the same within four months from the date of receipt of the reference, after affording opportunity to either party; (vii) without prejudice to the contentions of the appellants/petitioners-employees, one week time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order is given to the employees to join at the transferred places and in respect to such of those dismissed employees, for non-joining at the transferred places, the delay is condoned if they join as stipulated above and in that event, dismissal orders passed against them disappear automatically; and (viii) the respondents-managements shall sympathetically consider the payments of wages/salaries to the appellants/petitioners-employees so as to maintain the industrial peace and harmony." (j) 2006 1 CTC 776 (cited supra) "6. .. These are all regulatory measures for the purpose of maintaining healthy economic atmosphere in the Country. Such regulatory measures are provided for other companies also as well as industries manufacturing goods of importance. Otherwise, these are purely private commercial activities. It hardly makes any difference that such supervisory vigilance is kept, by the Reserve Bank of India under a statute or the Central Government. Such regulatory measures are provided for other companies also as well as industries manufacturing goods of importance. Otherwise, these are purely private commercial activities. It hardly makes any difference that such supervisory vigilance is kept, by the Reserve Bank of India under a statute or the Central Government. ... In the times of normal functioning, such occasions do not arise except for routine inspections, etc., with a view to see that things are moved smoothly in keeping with fiscal policies in general. Besides taking care of such interest, as mentioned above, there is no other interest of the State to control the affairs and management of the private companies. Such private companies would normally not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. The writ petition riled by the appellant cannot have any personal grievance in the matter and at best, only its members can have any grievance. It is well settled that ordinarily a writ petition can only be filed by someone who is personally aggrieved. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be sparingly used and only in those clear cases where the rights of a person have been seriously infringed and he has no other adequate and specific remedy available to him. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is based on the existence of a right in favour of a person invoking the writ jurisdiction. ...." 8. Pension is not a matter of bounty to be disbursed at the sweet will of the employer, this is well settled. So if a person is denied pension on arbitrary grounds, then we have no hesitation to exercise our power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In Bharat Overseas Bank case, the Bank denied pension on some trivial reason like there was no signature on the allotment letter. The Court rightly intervened. Even in AIR 1969 SC 1306 relied on by the Appellant, the Supreme Court has held, "6. In our view the High Court was correct in holding that the writ petition filed under Article 226 claiming against the company mandamus or an order in the nature of mandamus was misconceived and not maintainable. The Court rightly intervened. Even in AIR 1969 SC 1306 relied on by the Appellant, the Supreme Court has held, "6. In our view the High Court was correct in holding that the writ petition filed under Article 226 claiming against the company mandamus or an order in the nature of mandamus was misconceived and not maintainable. The writ obviously was claimed against the company and not against the conciliation officer in respect of any public or statutory duty imposed on him by the Act as it was not he but the company who sought to implement the impugned agreement. No doubt, Article 226 provides that every High Court shall have power to issue to any person or authority orders and writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus etc., or any of them for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose. But it is well understood that a mandamus lies to secure the performance of a public or statutory duty in the performance of which the one who applies for it has a sufficient legal interest. Thus, an application for mandamus will not lie for an order of restatement to an office which is essentially of a private character nor can such an application be maintained to secure performance of obligations owed by a company towards its workmen or to resolve any private dispute." 10. In Federal Bank case, which was the case of another Scheduled Bank, where it was a question of termination the Supreme Court held that no writ will lie. This Court in 2008 (3)LLN 320 = Manu/TN/0056/2008 has held that no writ will lie in a case involving the same respondent and the same regulations. 11. Bharat Overseas Bank case does not apply here because there the payment of pension was denied on the ground that the formal option letter was not attested. The Division Bench held that there is nothing in the whole of the scheme which even remotely suggest that failure to secure attestation would result in automatic rejection of the said letter. In this case, the respondent has not denied to the appellants their right to pension. They claimed to have calculated the pension by fixing the basic pay at the rate at which they would have received pay, if they continued in BoM. In this case, the respondent has not denied to the appellants their right to pension. They claimed to have calculated the pension by fixing the basic pay at the rate at which they would have received pay, if they continued in BoM. The case of the respondent is that the appellants have claimed pension on the basis of the ICICI basic salary together with the appropriate dearness relief though in the revised salary which they receive in ICICI, the dearness allowance has got merged. According to the respondent they cannot receive the ICICI basic pay in which dearness allowance has got merged for one purpose and then claim dearness allowance separately for obtaining pension. According to the respondent, they have in fact worked out the calculation and made their payments to the appellants as per the method which would be more advantageous to them. As regards the maintainability, the judgment in Federal Bank clears covers the issue. In fact, there it was the case of termination and yet, the Supreme Court held that the writ will not lie and the relevant paragraphs have already been extracted. We have already stated that Bharat Overseas Bank will not apply to this case since there the entire pension was denied arbitrarily. 12. This Court in Ananda Sayanan Vs. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies ( 2007 (5) CTC 1 (FB)) has held as follows: "14. Every illegal order of suspension or termination will not ipso facto amount to violation of Article 21. But there may be certain circumstances, as in a case of exclusion of an employee affected by HIV AIDS or an employee who has been rendered immobile by an accident or cases where the rights of huge number of employees are involved or where their very existence is jeopardized, where the employee may justifiably invoke Article 21 of the Constitution and seek protection by filing a writ petition. But every case of suspension or deprivation of wages for a period or termination will not entitle the employee of a co-operative society to move the writ Court and contend that the right of protection under Article 21 has been violated. The employees have adequate statutory protection in law. ...16. For every alleged or imagined invasion of his rights, an employee of a cooperative society cannot move the writ court on the ground that his rights under Article 21 have been infringed. The employees have adequate statutory protection in law. ...16. For every alleged or imagined invasion of his rights, an employee of a cooperative society cannot move the writ court on the ground that his rights under Article 21 have been infringed. The effect of the Supreme Court cases cited in Marappans case (cited supra) and the propositions set down in Marappans case (cited supra) cannot be set at naught merely by mentioning Article 21, even if the order is illegal. 17. Again, as held by the Supreme Court in Raja Mahendra Pals case (cited supra), Article 21 while including of attributes of life cannot be extended to the extent that all sorts of claim relating to legal or contractual rights could be brought within its ambit ignoring the person aggrieved and the nature of the right violated. Though the cases cited may not involve a co-operative society, the above position applies to the present case a fortiori. The cases where Supreme Court had invoked Article 21 as in Narendra Kumar Chandlas case (cited supra) or Konavalovs case (cited supra) were not grievances of an ordinary nature or a routine nature, as we have seen. 18. Therefore, every order affecting the service of a workman would not automatically amount to an infringement of his right under Article 21 enabling him to move the writ court. We cannot ignore the settled position that applications to secure performance of obligations owed by a Government or a society towards its employees or to resolve any private dispute cannot be decided on the basis of the Article 21. The appellant herein may perhaps have a good case on other grounds. But the order of suspension suspending him from the post of Secretary does not amount to infringement of Article 21 and while the decision in the judgment of the Division Bench in The Nazarath Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.s case (cited supra) may be right on the facts of that case, the observations made regarding the application of Article 21 need to be and are clarified as above. The mere fact that he was kept under suspension beyond one year without the approval of the Registrar cannot be said to violate Article 21. The mere fact that he was kept under suspension beyond one year without the approval of the Registrar cannot be said to violate Article 21. It must be seen whether the invocation of Article 21 is justified in the particular case and whether the order challenged by a workman of a co-operative society is of such a nature that it would truly take away his right under Article 21 of the Constitution and that it is taken away otherwise than by due process of law." 13. In 2003 (10) SCC 733 (cited supra) it has been held that private companies would not normally be subject to writ jurisdiction except where they failed to comply with duties and responsibilities imposed on them statutorily as for instance, the Minimum Wages Act or the Factories Act, etc. The Supreme Court has expressed that there would be difficulty in issuing a writ where there is no failure to comply with nor is there a violation of the statutory provision of the private body and it is specifically stated that merely because the RBI lays the banking policy does not automatically mean that private companies carrying on the business or commercial activity of banking, discharge any public function or public duty. Further it was held that they are not institutions carrying on any statutory or public duty. This has been followed in Lakshmi Narayanans case in which the present respondent is a party and in the judgment of the Full Bench( 2004(3) CTC 1 ) referred to above, it is held that every case of suspension or termination will not entitle the employee of the co-operative society to move the Court contending that the protection of Article 21 has been violated. 14. In the present case, both the parties referred to Regulations, Schemes and Agreements. There are major differences on facts. 14. In the present case, both the parties referred to Regulations, Schemes and Agreements. There are major differences on facts. According to the appellants, their right to receive dearness allowance on retirement has not been touched by any of the agreements, whereas according to the respondents, there was a settlement between the parties that dearness allowance would be merged and after a while there would not be any separate dearness allowance component and it would cease to exist separately and that when the appellants had agreed that the dearness allowance would be merged with the basic pay they cannot now urge that when it comes to payment of pension the right to dearness allowance would again revive. .15. Reference to 2005 Indian Banks Association Pension Fitment Chart also does not help the appellants since according to the respondents the banks name that BoM does not find a place in the list of 17 A Private Sector Banks and the Bank of Madura has adopted the industrial level settlements and understandings as and when they are finalised and that industrial level understanding is not automatically applicable to the employees of BoM and it was also agreed between the parties that the component structure and service conditions in ICICI are quite different from IBA and that itself had a higher package and therefore, a change to this package will be only after mutual discussions and agreement, irrespective of any present or future IBA settlements. The relevant paragraphs have already been extracted above. The calculation of pension is as per the agreements between the parties, the schemes of settlements entered into between them and contractual in nature and therefore, they cannot invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. It is not the right of pension which is denied. It is the mode of calculation which is disputed. It is seen from the materials available that the respondents have agreed to pay pension to the erstwhile BoM employees, though the ICICI employees themselves are not entitled to pension. According to the respondents, had the petitioners continued as BoM employees then they would have got their pension on the basis of the basic pay payable to them at BoM together with dearness allowance. Therefore, the terms on which pension has been paid cannot be said to be less favourable to them than what they were entitled to before the amalgamation. Therefore, the terms on which pension has been paid cannot be said to be less favourable to them than what they were entitled to before the amalgamation. After amalgamation, the basic pay got enhanced because dearness allowance was merged with it. To this basic pay, which includes the dearness allowance component, the appellants want to again add the dearness allowance and the respondents state that is not what was agreed upon. Even if the appellants are right, without assuming it to be so, it may at best be a breach of the terms of agreement. Therefore, we are unable to accept the case of the appellant that a public duty was violated. If pension was totally denied it may have been a different issue. .17. In 2008 AIR SCW 6886 = 2008 (11) SCC 591 (Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., & Anr. Vs. Ajit Kumar Kar & Ors.) an almost identical question arose. The respondents are the retirees of the Overseas Communication Service, Department of Telecommunications. This was converted into a Government Company, viz., "Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,” By a circular, the Government informed its decision regarding the manner in which Pension and other benefits would be determined. There were two pay scales. A letter issued by the Government also showed the Fitment Method by which the basic pay plus Central dearness allowance was merged in the basic pay to be fixed in the appropriate stage in VSNL. The retired employees filed the writ petition before the High Court of Calcutta. The writ petition was allowed as prayed for and the appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. It was contended that since pension is a right and not a bounty available to the retired employees and DR being a part of pension, right to receive the same could not have been denied merely because the incumbent opted for IDA pay scale. The Supreme Court gave its opinion on the various questions raised by the employees, some of which are relevant for this case. 18. The CCS Pension Rules defines the expression emolument to mean basic pay. From the facts it is seen that VSNL had originally paid pension for some period on a wrong calculation and understanding of the Government Circular and thereafter they realized their bona fide mistake. 18. The CCS Pension Rules defines the expression emolument to mean basic pay. From the facts it is seen that VSNL had originally paid pension for some period on a wrong calculation and understanding of the Government Circular and thereafter they realized their bona fide mistake. The Supreme Court held that the Government of India or VSNL had not "infringed or snatched away the right of pension of the respondent retirees", the respondent retirees, therefore, cannot be held entitled to get D.A. twice that first on CDA pay scale and then on IDA pay scale. Therefore, no question arose for the respondent retirees claiming the vested right for DR as per existing pay scales which was much higher than that of IDA pay scales were arrived at by merger of CDA pay scales and DR. "It is well-settled that DR is a matter of grace to the Government Servants and not a vested right and hence a claim against the Government for the grant of such allowance at particular rate is not justiciable. The grant of DR at such rates and subject to such conditions is the prerogative of the Central Government in terms of Rule 55-A of the CCA (Pension) Rules, 1972. Rule 44 of FR to the grant of DA imposed no duty on the State to grant it and it merely confers a power on the State to grant compassionate allowance at its own discretion and no mandamus or any other writ or direction, therefore, should be issued to compel the exercise of such a power as there is no right in the employee which is capable of being protected or enforced. [see State of M.P. V. G.C. Mandawar ( AIR 1954 SC 493 )]. 28. In this view of the matter, our conclusion on the question of denial of Dearness Relief on pension in case of those retired employees of VSNL who have drawn pay on IDA pay scales with IDA Dearness Relief is legal and just. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court in this regard cannot be sustained. " 19. As far as we are concerned we are bound to follow Federal Banks case and not Bharat Overseas Banks case. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court in this regard cannot be sustained. " 19. As far as we are concerned we are bound to follow Federal Banks case and not Bharat Overseas Banks case. We are also bound by the Full Bench decision in Anantha Sayanans case wherein it is clearly stated that against every order of termination or revision of pay, the employee cannot contend that his right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated and move the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The earlier Division Bench in Lakshmi Narayanans case held that a writ was not maintainable against the same Bank. In the above referred judgment of the Supreme Court in VSNLs case the Supreme Court held that no mandamus can be issued to compel payment of dearness allowance. Therefore, we hold that the writ is not maintainable and the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.