A person must have a legally protected right to seek a mandamus; missing a deadline does not constitute a legal grievance.

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