Public authorities must effectively communicate pension options to retirees, and publication in retirement portals is sufficient notice, upholding the necessity of cut-off dates for application submission.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, by the respondents in W.P(C)No.14240 of 2019 challenging the judgment dated 24.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Ext.P6 letter dated 12.04.2019 issued by the 3^rd appellant rejecting the application filed by the respondent herein to permit him to opt the Pension Scheme as provided in Ext.P3 Circular dated 13.07.2018 was set aside and consequentially directed the appellants to reconsider the respondent’s claim as expeditiously as is possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment.

2. The writ petition was one filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the respondent herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 letter dated 12.04.2019 issued by the 3^rd appellant rejecting the application filed by the respondent opting for Pension Scheme provided under Ext.P3 Circular for compulsorily retired employees, to declare that the respondent is eligible for the benefit of the Pension Scheme envisaged under Ext.P3 Circular and the appellants are bound to consider Exts.P4 and P5 applications submitted by the respondent; and a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants to consider Ext.P4 application dated 26.10.2018 submitted by the respondent for Pension and to allow the same as envisaged under Ext.P3 Circular.

3. According to the respondent, he joined service in Syndicate Bank as a Sub Staff on 02.05.1983 and was relieved from service under the Compulsory Retirement Scheme on 29.04.2005. As per the Pension Scheme existed at the time of retirement of the respondent, he was not eligible for opting pension benefits as his retirement was under the Compulsory Retirement Scheme. In 2016 a second opportunity was given to the employees who were in the service of the Bank on 29.09.1995 and retired thereafter, to exercise their option to join the Pension Scheme. Consequently, the respondent made Ext.P1 request dated 10.04.2016 to the 3^rd appellant to extend the benefit to him. But that request was rejected by the 3^rd appellant by Ext.P2 communication dated 24.05.2016. Thereafter Ext.P3 Circular dated 13.07.2018 was issued by the Bank incorporating new guidelines extending another option of Pension for compulsorily retired employees of the Bank. The last date for submission of the request with relevant annexures was on 22.08.2018. Except uploading Ext.P3 Circular in the Bank’s Website, no separate notice was published by the Bank either on the notice board or in any other form. The respondent came to know about the Circular only on 11.10.2018 and then he submitted Ext.P4 application dated 26.10.2018. Since the application was delayed for 50 days, he submitted Ext.P5 written request dated 01.11.2018 along with Ext.P4. However, the application of the respondent was rejected by the 3^rd appellant vide; Ext.P6 letter dated 12.04.2019.In the said circumstance, the respondent filed the writ petition.

4. The appellants filed a counter affidavit dated 12.08.2019 in the writ petition opposing the averments in the writ petition and producing therewith Annexures R1(a) and R1(b) documents. It was contended by the appellants that the information regarding Ext.P3 Circular was displayed in the notice boards in the Regional Office, Branches and Zonal Offices of the Bank and in the Bank’s Website under Retirees Portal. According to the appellants, Ext.P6 order has been passed after considering all the materials placed before the 3^rd appellant, after applying his mind. The respondent having submitted the Pension Option form beyond the date stipulated was dis