ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.28820 of 2018 The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent Bank in not paying the terminal benefits i.e., Gratuity for 20 months and Encashment of Earned Leave for 240 days to the petitioner after adjustment of amount already paid in accordance with Clause 3 of Memorandum of Intent dated 11.01.2013 as well as the inaction on the part of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in acting on the petitioner’s representations dated 01.08.2017, 14.05.2018 and 22.05.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent Bank to pay the Gratuity and Encashment of Earned Leave of the petitioner as per the Service Regulations of the 3rd respondent Bank and pass such other orders”. 2. The facts of the case are that pursuant to “Half a Million Jobs Programme” of the Government of India, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.390, dated 12.07.1973 for appointment of persons, who underwent Cooperative Training as Paid Secretaries in the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Societies (PACS) affiliated to District Cooperative Central Banks (DCCBs) in the State of Andhra Pradesh. For making such appointments, the 1st respondent constituted District Level Committees consisting of President of District Cooperative Central Bank, District Cooperative Officer and General Manager of DCCB of the respective Districts. The said Committees were also conferred with the powers regarding transfers and disciplinary action. About 2000 paid Secretaries were appointed by these Committees across the State on a consolidated pay of Rs.150/- per month. The paid secretaries so appointed were allotted to the PACSs to manage the affairs of the Societies under the administrative control of respective DCCBs. 3. Subsequently, they were being paid from out of the Common Cadre Fund contributed by the Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited (APCOB), DCCBs and PACSS. As the above said Paid Secretaries were appointed under “Half a Million Jobs Programme”, in order to provide a channel of recruitment to Paid Secretaries in DCCBs, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.773, dated 28.06.1983 providing recruitment on Category-V Personnel (Clerk/Cashier) in DCCBs from among the Paid Secretaries and In-Service Employees in 9:1 ratio respectively. As the above said Paid Secretaries were appointed under “Half a Million Jobs Programme”, in order to provide a channel of recruitment to Paid Secretaries in DCCBs, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.773, dated 28.06.1983 providing recruitment on Category-V Personnel (Clerk/Cashier) in DCCBs from among the Paid Secretaries and In-Service Employees in 9:1 ratio respectively. After bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh and on amendment of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies, the decaderised Paid Secretaries became the employees of PACS. The ratio of 9:1 for recruitment of Category-V personnel in DCCBs fixed by the Government was subsequently modified vide G.O.Ms.No.521, F & A (Coop.III) Department, dated 28.09.1993, wherein the ratio of recruitment of Category-V posts in DCCBs was fixed as 5:4:1 i.e. 5 by direct recruitment, 4 from Paid Secretaries and one from In-Service employees of DCCBs. 4. In pursuance of the representations made by the Service Associations of de-caderised Paid Secretaries, employees appointed by the respective PACS as well as the employees of DCCBs, wherein certain issues relating to pay and allowance and other service matters were raised, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.1533, dated 05.12.2008 constituting a Three Member Committee consisting of the Managing Director, APCOB, the 2nd respondent and the Chief General Manager, NABARD, Andhra Pradesh Regional Office, Hyderabad to examine various issues. The said Committee after holding its meetings and negotiations with the Service Associations/representations of the employees of PACS and DCCBs, submitted interim report to the Government on 05.02.2009 making certain recommendations, out of which, one of the recommendations is that the decaderised Paid Secretaries, who were initially appointed by DCCBs and subsequently allotted to PACS consequent on decaderisation, may be reverted back to concerned DCCBs. 5. After careful examination of the matter, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.67, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, dated 20.02.2009 permitting the respective DCCBs to take back the services of the de-caderised Paid Secretaries to enable the PACSs to comply with the expenditure ceiling fixed by the NABARD under Section 115-D(2) of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (APCS Act). In the said G.O., it was also alleged that reverted de-caderised Paid Secretaries will constitute a Special Category of Assistants. Thereafter, all the de-caderised Paid Secretaries joined in DCCBs as Special Category Assistants. In the said G.O., it was also alleged that reverted de-caderised Paid Secretaries will constitute a Special Category of Assistants. Thereafter, all the de-caderised Paid Secretaries joined in DCCBs as Special Category Assistants. Subsequently, certain representations were received by the Government from the District Cooperative Central Banks Employees Union and some other employees/Trade Unions complaining that the DCCBs are not considering the Special Category Assistants for promotion to the posts of Assistant Managers and are still implementing the norms fixed for the PACS for payment of Gratuity and Encashment of Earned Leave. 6. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, while referring to G.O.Ms.No.224, dated 18.02.2010, vide letter R.C.No.4717/2009/PC-I, dated 24.05.2001, instructed the DCCBs to extend all retirement benefits of Gratuity and Encashment of Earned Leave to the Special Category Assistants recruited from de-caderised Paid Secretaries on par with the Cadre-V employees of DCCBs and further instructed that the Special Category Assistants are to be considered for promotions on par with Cadre-V employees. 7. Aggrieved by the letter dated 24.05.2011, the A.P. Central Cooperative Banks Employees Association filed W.P.No.15618 of 2009 before this Court challenging G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 20.02.2009 and consequently, sought for withdrawal of services of the de-caderised Paid Secretaries from DCCBs and sending them back to PACSs, wherein an interim order was passed on 13.06.2011 as follows: “There shall be an interim suspension subject to the condition of the respondent paying Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) towards gratuity to the employees who have already retired from service.” 8. Subsequently, the Minister of Cooperation, Government of Andhra Pradesh in its meeting held on 09.11.2011, constituted Sub-Committee with Presidents of DCCBs to look into the issues relating to the service matters of employees working in the Cooperative Credit Institutions. The Sub- Committee submitted its report with the recommendations as to the mode and manner of payment of retirement benefits to Special Category Assistants. In order to adopt uniform procedure in the matters pertaining to payment of terminal benefits to the Special Category Assistants across all the DCCBs in the State, without giving any scope of ambiguity from any quarter, a Memorandum of Intent was executed by the A.P. Cooperative Banks Association and A.P. State DCCBs’ Employees Union at the instance of the Government, on 11.01.2013 duly specifying the terms and conditions for payment of terminal benefits to the Special Category Assistants. As per Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Intent, the Special Category Assistants, who completed five years of service in the DCCB are eligible for the terminal benefits as per the service regulations of the DCCBs. 9. The case of the petitioner is that he was recruited in the 3rd respondent bank in the year 1978 as a Paid Secretary under the “Half a Million Jobs Programme” and worked as such in various PACSs under the direct administrative control of the 3rd respondent bank. In the year 2009, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 20.02.2009, he was reverted back to the service of the 3rd respondent bank as Special Category Assistant. In the year 2014, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager in the 3rd respondent bank and continued as such till the date of attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years as on 30.06.2016. His case is that as per Service Regulation No.69 (i) (c) (Chapter XI – Terminal Benefits) of the 3rd respondent bank, which are applicable to the petitioner and the other Special Category Assistants who have put in more than five years of service as per Clause 3 of Memorandum of Intent, dated 11.01.2013, the petitioner is entitled for gratuity for 20 months and as well as encashment of earned leave for 240 days. 10. His further case is that the 3rd respondent bank paid gratuity to the petitioner basing on his service in the bank post reversion i.e. from the year 2009 only instead of taking into consideration his past service from the year 1978. Similarly, encashment of earned leave was also paid for the post reversion period of seven years only instead of his full entitlement i.e. from the date of his initial appointment. As such, the petitioner made representations on 01.08.2017, 14.05.2018 and 22.05.2018 to the respondents 2 to 4 respectively, requesting them for payment of gratuity and for encashment of his earned leave as per his entitlement, but, as no action has been initiated by the respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 11. The respondent No.3 filed its counter stating that the petitioner joined the DCCB on 02.09.2009 and retired from service on 30.06.2016, thereby possessing six years, nine months and 28 days of service, which was rounded to seven years of service to his credit in the 3rd respondent bank. 11. The respondent No.3 filed its counter stating that the petitioner joined the DCCB on 02.09.2009 and retired from service on 30.06.2016, thereby possessing six years, nine months and 28 days of service, which was rounded to seven years of service to his credit in the 3rd respondent bank. As the petitioner completed about seven years of service in the bank, he was considered on par with the regular bank employees and paid gratuity at the rate of one month salary for seven years service (rounded of). Accordingly, as per service regulations of the Bank, the bank paid gratuity of Rs.3,86,973/- on 28.12.2016 through cheque bearing No.001081 and also credited Rs.3,09,732/- to his SB Account No.081822010004367 on 25.10.2016 towards leave encashment of 180 days, for which, he is eligible as per the leave account. The Point No.69(i)(c) of the Service Regulations which provides that in case of retirement on attaining superannuation, the gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of one month pay for each year of service subject to maximum of 20 months. The maximum of 20 months is to be construed for the employees who have put in more than 20 years of service and the services for calculation of gratuity amount means from the length of service from the date of joining and the pay shall mean Basic Pay, Dearness Allowance, Special Allowance last drawn. 12. The 3rd respondent further stated that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28820 of 2018 to consider the representations of the petitioner to pay gratuity and encashment of earned leave in accordance with Clause 3 of Memorandum of Intent dated 11.01.2013 and as per Service Regulations of the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent issued a letter dated 21.09.2018 intimating the petitioner that the Bank has already paid gratuity and encashment of earned leave in the year 2016 itself as per Clause 3 of Memorandum of Intent dated 11.01.2013 and that he is not entitled for any further gratuity or leave encashment. 13. 13. The further case of the 3rd respondent is that the Special Category Assistants, who have completed five years of service in DCCB, shall however, be eligible for the terminal benefits as per point No.69(i)(c) of the Service Regulations of the DCCB, according to which, the calculation of Gratuity amount means the length of the service from the date of joining and further contended that the petitioner was paid leave encashment for 180 days, which are as under:- EL/PL Particulars of PVMM Krishna Murthy From To EL/PL Credit EL/PL Debit Total 02.09.2009 31.03.2015 169 - 169 Surrender leave for the year 2015 15 154 01.04.2015 31.03.2016 33 - 187 Surrender leave for the year 2016 15 172 01.04.2016 30.06.2016 8 - 180 14. The respondents 1 and 2 also filed counter and reiterated the contents as stated by the 3rd respondent and further submitted that as per Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Intent dated 11.01.2013, the employees are eligible for the benefits from the date of joining in DCCB only and further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.224, dated 18.02.2010 and service regulations of the bank and further stated that if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the benefits due to the petitioner in the cadre of Special Category Assistant, for which he had worked prior to joining in DCCB, he has to approach the respective PACS by filing a case, but not by way of this writ petition. Hence sought for dismissal of the writ petition. CONTEMPT CASE No.2919 of 2018 15. The present contempt case has been filed by the petitioner to punish the respondents 1 to 3 under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willfully disobeying the orders dated 30.08.2018 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.28820 of 2018. 16. On 30.08.2018, this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.28820 of 2018 passed the following order:- “Respondents 2 to 4 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 01.08.2017, 14.05.2018 and 22.05.2018 and pay the Gratuity and Encashment of Earned Leave in accordance with clause 3 of memorandum of Intent dated 11.01.2013, and as per the Service Regulations of the 3rd respondent, within six (6) weeks from today.” 17. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that after obtaining orders from this Court, the 2nd respondent rejected the representations of the petitioner by proceedings dated 21.09.2018 stating that he is not entitled for any further gratuity, for which, the respondents are liable for contempt for violating the order of this Court. 18. The 3rd respondent filed his counter-affidavit along with the documents establishing that in pursuance of the order of this Court, the respondents have obeyed the order of this Court and considered the representations of the petitioner and communicated the proceedings dated 21.09.2018 to the petitioner, which was also acknowledged by him on 24.09.2018 and pleaded that they have not violated the order of this Court. 19. The 2nd respondent also filed counter-affidavit reiterating the facts as stated by the 3rd respondent in his counter-affidavit and thereby sought for dismissal of the contempt case. 20. Since the issue involved in the contempt case is basing on the interim orders passed in the writ petition, which is a consequential action of the respondents, both the matters are being disposed of by way of this common order. 21. Heard Sri Syed Arif Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Agriculture and Cooperation for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri B.Hanumantha Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the facts as stated in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petition and as well as the contempt case. 23. As seen from the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.28820 of 2018, admittedly, this Court passed interim order directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner in accordance with service regulations of the bank and as per Memorandum of Intent dated 11.01.2013 and pay gratuity to him. Subsequently, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the 2nd respondent considered the representations of the petitioner and rejected his claim, but however not as per the Memorandum of Intent dated 11.01.2013, which itself shows that the respondents have failed to comply with the order of this Court in toto. However, as the main writ petition is pending for consideration and the contempt case is tagged with the present writ petition, both the matters are being disposed of by way of this common order. 24. However, as the main writ petition is pending for consideration and the contempt case is tagged with the present writ petition, both the matters are being disposed of by way of this common order. 24. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for any further gratuity and encashment of earned leave? 25. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the benefits due to him in the cadre of Special Category Assistant, for which he had worked prior to joining in DCCB, he has to approach the respective PACS by filing a case, but not by way of this writ petition. 26. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment in S.S.Rana v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and another, (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 634 on the point of maintainability of writ petition, wherein it was held at para Nos.17 and 18 as under:- “17. It is, therefore, evident that in Ram Sahan Rai [ (2001) 3 SCC 323 )] also the cooperative society was held to be established under a statute. We may notice that in Nayagarh Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. Narayan Rath & Anr. [ (1977) 3 SCC 576 ], this Court was of the opinion that: "The High Court has dealt with the question whether a writ petition can be maintained against a cooperative society, but we are inclined to the view that the observations made by the High Court and its decision that such a writ petition is maintainable are not strictly in accordance with the decisions of this Court. We would have liked to go into the question for ourselves, but it is unnecessary to do so as Respondent 1 by his writ petition, was asking for relief not really against a cooperative society but in regard to the order which was passed by the Registrar, who was acting as a statutory authority in the purported exercise of powers conferred on him by the Cooperative Societies Act. The writ petition was in that view maintainable." 18. The writ petition was in that view maintainable." 18. We may notice in some decisions, some High Courts have held wherein that a writ petition would be maintainable against a society if it is demonstrated that any mandatory provision of the Act or the rules framed thereunder, have been violated by it.” In view of the ratio laid down in the above judgment, the present writ petition is maintainable. 27. Now, with regard to payment of gratuity and encashment of earned leave, it is relevant to extract the terms and conditions of Memorandum of Intent dated 11.01.2013 as under:- “1….. (i) Gratuity: A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be payable by the PACS as per its Bye-laws/Service Regulations, complying the eligibility based on last pay drawn (basic + DA) at PACS, before absorption into DCCB. The DCCB shall pay @ one month’s salary (basic+DA) for each completed year of service rendered in DCCB, complying eligibility based on last pay drawn (basic+DA) at DCCB at the time of superannuation. (ii) Leave Encashment: Total eligibility shall be Max.240 days (subject to availability of leave to his credit) and encashment based on gross salary last drawn in PACS, proportionately, for the service rendered in PACS, and at the rate of gross salary drawn in DCCB, proportionately, for the service rendered in DCCB. …. 3. The SCAs who have completed 5 years of service in the DCCB shall however be eligible for the terminal benefits as per the SR of the DCCBs.” 28. As the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1978 as a Paid Secretary and thereafter in the year 2009 in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.67, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, dated 20.02.2009, he was reverted back to the service of the 3rd respondent bank as Special Category Assistant and subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Manager in the year 2014 and as he continued as such till the date of his superannuation i.e. 58 years as on 30.06.2016, the petitioner is entitled for gratuity as well as leave encashment from the date of his initial appointment i.e. from the year 1978 as per the terms and conditions of Memorandum of Intent dated 11.01.2013. Though the petitioner possesses more than 20 years of service as on the date of his retirement, the maximum gratuity payable is 20 months only. Though the petitioner possesses more than 20 years of service as on the date of his retirement, the maximum gratuity payable is 20 months only. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for both terminal benefits i.e. 20 months of gratuity and as well as 240 days of leave encashment as per the Memorandum of Intent dated 11.01.2013. 29. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to pay gratuity for 20 months and 240 days of leave encashment by duly deducting the amount already paid towards gratuity and leave encashment, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 30. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the orders passed in the main writ petition, the Contempt Case is closed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.