IMPORTANT POINT
The Court's discretion to refuse jurisdiction due to delay and laches in filing a writ petition, and the limitations on the Court's adjudication of unchallenged actions of the public authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

CM APPL No. 45609/2023

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 11682/2023

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"a. Issue a Writ in the nature of MANDAMUS and/or any other appropriate Writ/Order/Direction of like nature thereby directing the Respondent to grant pension in accordance with the Employee Pension Scheme,1995 and IBA circular dated 10.08.2010;

b. Pass any other or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice"

2. It is submitted that the petitioner joined the respondent bank on 4th September 1968 and in 2001, opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and retiredon 20th April 2001.

3. It is submitted that the Indian Banks' Association issued a circular on 10th August 2010 to all the banks directing them to extend another option to all their employees who had not opted for the pension scheme earlier and were in bank services of Nationalized Banks before 29th September 1995 to be eligible for the said scheme and the deadline for the same 30th October, 2010. The petitioner despite falling in the said category failed to apply within the deadline stipulated for the said pension scheme.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner sent a representation on 2nd November 2010 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent bank seeking that the petitioner be allowed to file the application for the said pension scheme as there is a delay of merely one day in filing the said application. The respondent did not reply to the petitioner's said representation.

5. It is submitted after receiving no response regarding the said representation, on 3rd March 2023, the petitioner's son sent a representation to the respondent bank. The respondent bank replied on 10th March 2023 to the representation dated 3rd March 2023 which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4 to the instant petition.

6. It is further submitted that the respondent bank vide its reply dated 10th March 2023 eerred in not allowing the petitioner for the pension scheme.

7. It is contended that the petitioner being eligible for the pension scheme has been wrongly denied the benefits of pension. It is further contended that the petitioner's legal right is violated by denial of such pension scheme to the petitioner.

8. It is submitted that there is gross violation of right of the pension and hence, the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking a writ of mandamus by way of directing the respondent bank to grant pension in accordance with the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 and Indian Bank Association Circular dated 10th August 2010.

9. In view of the foregoing submissions, the counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petition may be allowed, and the reliefs as claimed by the petitioner may be granted by this Court.

10. Heard and perused the pleadings on record.

11. Based on the arguments on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner, pleadings on record, the issues for adjudication before this Court are-

"1.Whether this Court can entertain a writ petition filed after a delay of 12 years challenging representation given in 2010?

2.Whether this Court for the purpose of deciding the present petition can take into account the reply of the respondent bank dated 10th March 2023 to the representation dated 3rd March 2023 filed by petitioner's son, which has not been challenged by way of instant writ petition?"

12. Now this Court will adjudicate upon the first issue pertaining to delay in filing the writ petition.

13. The case of the petitioner is that he had given his representation to the respondent bank on 2nd November 2010 and the respondent bank did not respond to the same. The petitioner has filed the present petition aggrieved by the lack of action on behalf of the respondent Bank.

14. It is a well-settled law that there is no limitation period for filing of the