ORDER : (K. Manmadha Rao, J.) : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief : “…..to issue a Writ Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings in HRD/Pro/B-13/2017, dated 08.08.2017 issued by the 2nd Respondent as illegal arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice without jurisdiction and violative of the property rights as guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution of India consequently set aside the impugned proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 08.08.2017 with a direction to the Respondents 2 and 3 to pay the entire arrears towards retiral benefits payable to the Petitioner as General Manager with interest throughout and pass….” 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Manager in PDCC Bank Ongole on 10.09.1984, promoted as Assistant General Manager on 27.3.1999 and further promoted as Deputy General Manager on 18.09.2007. While so, the 2nd respondent Bank has approved the draft service regulations in terms of the decision taken by A.P. Cooperative Banks Association (APCOBA) and therefore the revised service regulations of the Prakasam District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd came into operation w.e.f. September 2012 onwards. Since the date of the appointment, the petitioner is discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction and he has also discharged functions as Chief Executive Officer (FAC) for nearly 18 months and he was granted additional allowances and perks as indicated in resolution No.9 dated 9.6.2015. Later the petitioner was retired from service on attaining superannuation of 58 years, on 30.11.2015 vide proceedings in HRD/F.No.181/B-13/2015 dated 30.11.2015 issued by the then President of the 2nd respondent Bank. While so, to the utter surprise, the Chief Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent Bank issued the present impugned proceedings dated 08.08.2017 for recovery of amount from the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner while relying upon the letter No.20/APCBA/2017, dated 18.04.2017 issued by the Executive Director of the 4th respondent, wherein it is observed that where the Bank is not eligible to continue the General Manager post as per NABARD guidelines such General Manager is not eligible for the benefits of the agreement. It is further stated that the 4th respondent has sent a letter No.APCBA/37/2017, dated 01.11.2017 to the Chief Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent Bank and pointed out that the petitioner worked in the cadre of General Manger as the post was already created/ sanctioned in the Board Meeting as per the required financial criteria of the Bank. It was an existing post in the Bank and already held by Sri J.Nageswara Rao, General Manger, who retired on 30.6.2013 and the petitioner was posted as General Manager in the permanent vacancy hence the question of interpretation should not have arisen to the Bank officials and ultimately declared that the petitioner is eligible. In view of the said letter, dated 01.11.2017 as per his eligibility, the petitioner was promoted as General Manager. But the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 08.08.2017 for recovery of retiral benefits payable to be petitioner, is highly illegal and arbitrary. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No.2 and 3. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, as per the Mitra Committee recommendations, in the staffing pattern in CCBs Head office , the Senior Management (GM&DGM) is mentioned as under: Level Category of CCBs based on retail or non institutional deposits + total loans outstanding. A B C D (Above Rs.1000 crores) (Rs.500 crores to 1000 crores) (Rs.200 crores to 500 crores) (Up to Rs.200 crores) Senior Management (GM & DGM) ** 5 4 3 It is further stated that, as seen from the financial position of the Bank as on 31.3.2012, the total business turnover was Rs.752.62 crores and it was placed under the category “B”. Keeping in view of the business volume of DCCB and as per MCR No.37, dated 14.06.2013 the Deputy General Manager namely Sri J. Nageswara Raowas promoted as General Manager on 17.6.2013. Consequently after the retirement of Sri J. Nageswara Rao, the General Manager post was filled by Sri R.Mohan Rao on 19.08.2013, and Sri B.Anjaiah on 11.04.2016, respectively Deputy General Manager namely Sri J.Nageswara Rao was promoted as General Manager on 17.06.2013. Consequently after the retirement of Sri J.Nageswara Rao, the General Manager post was filled by Sri R.Mohan Rao on 19.08.2013, and Sri B.Anjajah on 11.04.2016, respectively. Consequently after the retirement of Sri J.Nageswara Rao, the General Manager post was filled by Sri R.Mohan Rao on 19.08.2013, and Sri B.Anjajah on 11.04.2016, respectively. It is further stated that, for the employees, who put up the note for giving promotions from DGM to GM on 17.06.2013, which is against the NABARD and APCOB guidelines issued Warning memo by the President of the Bank. The respondents have received a letter from Sri. P.V.Braham, Executive Director, APCBA dt: 01.11.2013 and he stated in point No. 3 that "Sri. R. Mohan Rao had been worked in the cadre of General Manager as the post was already created / sanctioned in the board meeting as per the required financial criteria of the bank. It was an existing post in the bank and already held by Sri. J. Nageswara Rao, General Manager (Rtd) on 30.06.2013. Sri R.Mohan Rao was posted in the permanent vacancy. Hence the question of interpretation/doubt should not have arisen to the bank officials hence he is eligible.” It is further stated that as per Mitra Committee recommendations the BOM have been resolved the staff strength in its meeting held on 11.08.2010 by that time the GM post is not eligible as per business was 500 crores and bank has comes under ‘C’ class bank in the audit classification of the bank, By Considering the volume of the business it, crossed the 500 crores (at that time 752.62crores) and Bank has B.Class Bank in audit classification of the bank and keeping in the view of the above, the bank has created the General Manager post in the Bank and resolved by the BOM in its meeting held on 14.06.2013. Again as per Instructions of APCOB the GM post was withdrawn with effect from 11.08.2010 and resolved by the BOM in its meeting held on 22.08.2017. The Created GM Post in the Bank on 14.06.2013 and promoted Sri. J. Nageswara Rao DGM as GM and J.Nageawara Rao retired in July 2013 and promoted to Sri R.Mohan Rao, DGM as GM of the Bank. When BOM has withdrawn the GM Post with effect from 11.08.2010 and maintain the position as maintained on 11.08.2010 has advised by the high level committee recommendations communicated by the APCOB. Therefore there are no grounds to allow the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 4. Heard Mr. When BOM has withdrawn the GM Post with effect from 11.08.2010 and maintain the position as maintained on 11.08.2010 has advised by the high level committee recommendations communicated by the APCOB. Therefore there are no grounds to allow the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 4. Heard Mr. K. Koutilya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.P. Sudeepthi, learned Assistant government Pleader for Co-operation appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, the respondents No.2 and 3 ought to have seen that the 4th respondent sent a letter No.APCBA/37/2017, dated 01.11.2017 to the Chief Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent Bank and pointed out that the petitioner was worked in the cadre of General Manger as the post was already created/sanctioned in the Board Meeting as per the required financial criteria of the Bank. He further submits that it was an existing post in the Bank and already held by Sri J. Nageswara Rao , General Manager, who retired on 30.06.2013 and the petitioner was posted as General Manager in the permanent vacancy. Hence the question of interpretation should not have arisen to the Bank Officials but ultimately declared that the petitioner is eligible. Learned counsel further submits that, in view of the letter of the 4th respondent Bank dated 01.11.2017 as per eligibility the petitioner was promoted as General Manager, therefore the letter dated 18.4.2017 which the 2nd respondent relied on for recovery of amount from the petitioner’s retiral benefits is wrongly interpreted without any application of mind though no such directions were given to the 2nd respondent, therefore the respondents No.2 and 3 are not entitled to recover any amount from retiral benefits of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel further submits that, the respondents No.2 and 3 ought to have seen that there is no specific provision under Prakasam District Cooperative Central Bank service regulations to recover any amount from the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner after his retirement. In the absence of such provisions it must be held that the respondent Bank had no legal authority to recover any amount from his retiral benefits. 7. In the absence of such provisions it must be held that the respondent Bank had no legal authority to recover any amount from his retiral benefits. 7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments reported in Bhagirathi Jena versus Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others, (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 666 and in another case reported in Dev Prakash Tewari versus Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others, (2014) 7 Supreme Court Cases 260, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even for recovery of any amount from his retiral benefits, the employer is not empowered unless the rules are specifically provides to do so. In the instant case, under the PDCC Bank service regulations no such power is conferred on the 2nd respondent to recover any amount from retiral benefits of the petitioner after his retirement and therefore the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, denied all the contents made by learned counsel for the petitioner. She submits that as per Mitra Committee recommendations the BOM have been resolved the staff strength in its meeting held on 11.8.2010 by that time the GM post is not eligible as per business was 500 crores and bank has comes under ‘C’ class bank in the audit classification of the bank. She further submits that as per instructions of APCOB the GM post was withdrawn w.e.f 11.8.2010 and resolved by the BOM in its meeting held on 22.8.32017. the created GM post in the Bank on 14.6.2013 and promoted Sri J. Nageswara Rao, DGM as GM of the Bank. When the BOM has withdrawn the GM post w.e.f. 11.8.2010 and maintain the position as maintained on 11.8.2010 has advised by the high level committee recommendations communicated by APCOB. She further submits that, on the request of Sri R.Mohan Rao through letter dated 27.12.2019 the then PIC/District Collector of the Bank also rejected the request of Sri R.Mohan rao, DGM (retd.) shall not considered in view of the 115D of APCC Act 164 the competent authority is Board Of Management. She further submits that, on the request of Sri R.Mohan Rao through letter dated 27.12.2019 the then PIC/District Collector of the Bank also rejected the request of Sri R.Mohan rao, DGM (retd.) shall not considered in view of the 115D of APCC Act 164 the competent authority is Board Of Management. As per General Conditions, "The Management reserve right to recover the excess amount from the salaries of the individual employee in installment, if it is noticed that consequent on implementation of Agreement excess amount due to discrepancies or erroneous have been paid to employee covered under this Agreement and association are not raise any dispute on this issue." Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the bank has settled the all the retirement benefits to the petitioner. As per the directions of APCOB & APCBA only the respondents reverted him and as per Service Register Point No.31 the Bank recovered the Excess amount drawn by the petitioner in the Cadre of General Manager and hence the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs claimed by him. Therefore, the Writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. On perusing the material, this Court observed that, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as General Manager in the 2nd respondent Bank and he was retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation at the age 58 years as General Manager on 30.06.2013. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was worked in the cadre of General Manager as the post was already created/sanctioned in the Board Meeting as per the required financial criteria of the Bank. It was also clearly established from the letter of 4th respondent which was sent to the Chief Executive Officer. It is also contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent Bank is laible ot pay the arrears of salary as per revised pay scales in between the period from 01.11.2012 to 30.11.2015 in the cadre of General Manger after deducting the salary already paid in the cadre of Deputy General Manager, the arrears towards gratuity, arrears towards leave salary, arrears towards perks, and 8% officiating allowance as per Bank service regulations, since the petitioner hold additional charge of a higher post i.e., Chief Executive Officer for a period of 18 months. 10. 10. This Court further observed that, it was an existing post in the Bank and already held by Sri J. Nageswara Rao, General Manager and the petitioner was posted as General Manger in the permanent vacancy. It is also noticed that the letter of the 4th respondent Bank, as per eligibility, the petitioner was promoted as General Manger. Further, during his tenure, the petitioner never committed any financial or other irregularities or if any committed by the petitioner, while in service necessary action required to be initiated by the Bank. But the petitioner never committed any financial irregularities or committed any Civil or Criminal offences. 11. On hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels and on perusing the entire material on record, it appears that there is no post of General Manager. But whatever the reason, the respondent authorities have appointed the petitioner as General Manger and accordingly whatever the period he worked as General Manger, the entitlement of payments were already given to the petitioner as stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit. But with regard to excess amount drawn by the individual as General Manager is recovered from his arrear amounts which have been drawn in new pay scales as per the instructions communicated in the letter dated 18.04.2017 of the 4th respondent, this Court feels that the 2nd respondent has no power to recover any amount from his retiral benefits after his retirement therefore the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion and by following the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition by declaring the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in HRD/Pro/B.13/2017 dated 8.8.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent are herby set aside. Further, the respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to pay the entire arrears towards retiral benefits payable to the petitioner as General Manager, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.