1. Retired employee failed to exercise option for a pension scheme within the stipulated deadline, subsequently seeking relief via a writ petition. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 511
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Bank of India and Others – Appellants
Versus
Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3829 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 24400 of 2024]
Decided On : 18-03-2025
Important Points
A person must have a legally protected right to seek a mandamus; missing a deadline does not constitute a legal grievance.
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - The Division Bench of the High Court interfered with the dismissal of a writ petition concerning the denial of a pension option to a retired employee who failed to apply within the stipulated time. The Single Judge held the decision not to entertain the option was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. (Paras 7, 11, 17)
(B) Legal Rights - The court emphasized that a person must have a legally protected right to seek a mandamus, and failure to act within a prescribed time frame does not constitute a legal grievance. (Paras 16, 17)
(C) Judicial Discretion - The court reiterated that high courts should not exercise discretion based on sympathy or compassion in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The first respondent, after retiring from the Bank of India, missed the opportunity to opt for the pension scheme due to hospitalization and lack of awareness of the circular. The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, which was later overturned by the Division Bench.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench's interference was unjustified as the first respondent failed to act within the deadline, and the circular was widely publicized.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Division Bench was justified in overturning the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Division Bench erred in allowing the appeal, emphasizing that the first respondent did not have a legally protected right to claim the pension after missing the deadline.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Legal Rights - The court emphasized that a person must have a legally protected right to seek a mandamus, and failure to act within a prescribed time frame does not constitute a legal grievance. (Paras 16, 17)
(C) Judicial Discretion - The court reiterated that high courts should not exercise discretion based on sympathy or compassion in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The first respondent, after retiring from the Bank of India, missed the opportunity to opt for the pension scheme due to hospitalization and lack of awareness of the circular. The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, which was later overturned by the Division Bench.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench's interference was unjustified as the first respondent failed to act within the deadline, and the circular was widely publicized.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Division Bench was justified in overturning the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Division Bench erred in allowing the appeal, emphasizing that the first respondent did not have a legally protected right to claim the pension after missing the deadline.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Goel, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Shanth Kumar Mahale, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Goel, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Shanth Kumar Mahale, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether a beneficial pension policy allows for condonation of delay in exercising an option based on medical grounds and lack of awareness. (Para 6 , 9 )
3. The bank provided wide publicity for the option; short-term hospitalization does not excuse negligence; beneficial policies must still adhere to prescribed time limits. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 20 , 21 )
4. Mandamus cannot be issued without a legally protected right; writ jurisdiction does not extend to aid the indolent based on sympathy or compassion. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
5. Appeal allowed; judgment of the Division Bench set aside; order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition affirmed. (Para 22 )
6. What is the employer's duty when introducing a pension scheme for retired employees?
The employer must communicate the option through reasonable modes, such as publishing notices in newspapers, sending circulars to retirees or associations, or using a designated website, to ensure retirees can exercise their options. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. Does the beneficial nature of a policy permit the relaxation of stipulated time limits for availing benefits?
No. Even if a policy is beneficial, benefits cannot be availed beyond the stipulated period at the convenience of the subject if a time limit is prescribed. (Para 15 )
8. When can a person seek a writ of mandamus for the enforcement of a right?
A mandamus can only be sought when there is a judicially enforceable and legally protected right that has been denied by someone with a legal duty to act. (Para 16 , 17 )
9. Does the high court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 extend to provide relief based on sympathy or compassion for delays?
No. Writ powers do not aid the tardy, indolent, or lethargic, and the exercise of discretion should not be influenced by considerations of sympathy, grace, charity, or compassion. (Para 18 , 19 )
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants call in question the judgment and order dated 7th March, 2024 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana1 [High Court] allowing a writ appeal2 [Writ Appeal No. 188 of 2024] carried by the first respondent from the judgment and order dated 22nd November, 2023 of dismissal of his writ petition3 [Writ Petition No. 29659 of 2011] by a Single Judge of the same court.
3. The solitary question arising for decision on this appeal is whether the Division Bench was justified in its interference with the order of dismissal of the writ petition.
4. After serving the first appellant4 [BoI] for about 25 years, the first respondent opted for voluntary retirement and was relieved from the service of BoI on 30th December, 2000.
5. On 24th August, 2010, BoI published Circular No. 104/645 [said circular] inviting options from retired employees between 1st September, 2010 and 30th October, 2010 to join the Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995. The said circular recorded that the option to join the pension scheme was being extended in terms of an agreement/joint note dated 27th April, 2010 signed between the Indian Banks Association6 [IBA] and various Officers’ Associations/Workmen Unions (United Forum of Bank Unions). The option was available to be exercised inter alia by employees of BoI who were in service prior to 29th September, 1995 and retired prior to the date of settlement, i.e. 27th April, 2010.
6. The first respondent had travelled to the United States of America in March, 2010. He returned to India a week after the said circular was issued but much prior to the last date for exercise of option. He claimed that he had to undergo a surgery in the 1st week of October, 2010. He also claimed that not being aware of the opportunity extended by BoI to exercise option within 30th October, 2010 and despite being eligible, he missed such opportunity. It was only on 19th March, 2011, i.e. 4 (four) months beyond the stipulated date, that the first respondent proceeded to express his interest to opt for the pension scheme by submitting a representation on that day itself by filling up the requisite forms claiming that he derived knowledge of the said circular from two erstwhile employees of BoI.
7. Option not having been exercised by the first respondent within the stipulated time, obviously, BoI did not accept such option. This triggered the writ petition, which the Single Judge dismissed. It was held that the period for exercise of option having expired by the time the first respondent exercised his option, the decision not to entertain the option was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary; hence, no interference was called for.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent appealed. It is such appeal that has succeeded by reason of the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench.
9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order. The only reason that can be traced in the impugned judgment and order for the writ appeal to be allowed is found in paragraph 6 thereof, reading as follows:
“6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, is of the view that the respondent-bank has issued Circular dated 24.08.2010 wherein a policy was taken to extend pension to all the retired employees. When such policy is beneficial in nature, the respondent-bank ought to have considered the application submitted by the appellant; though it was submitted belatedly after expiry of the deadline prescribed in the Circular 24.08.2010. As the appellant has undergone surgery during the relevant period of time, the lapse on his part can be condoned. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.”
10. We have no hesitation to hold that the Division Bench was entirely wrong in interfering with the
