The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be maintained against a private scheduled commercial bank.

1. Heard, Mr. L.J. Krishnamurthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr. A.P. Balasubramaniam, the learned Central Government Standing counsel for the first respondent; and Mr. Sanjay for S. Ramasubramaniam & Associates, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3-Bank.

2. The erstwhile employees of Bank of Madura, which was later on merged with ICICI Bank, have come forward with this petition for a Mandamus, to direct the second respondent-Bank to pay pension as per Bank of Madura Employees ‘ Pension Regulations, 1995.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were originally employed in the Bank of Madura and served in various Branches till their voluntary retirement. The Bank of Madura merged with the ICICI Bank, under the scheme of amalgamation under Section 44-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. After the amalgamation, the entire responsibilities were taken over by respondents 2 and 3-ICICI Bank. According to the petitioners, at the time of their-retirement, the Management of Bank of Madura, had assured them that the pension will be given to them as and when the Pension Scheme was introduced by the Bank. Subsequently, a Pension Scheme called as, “Bank of Madura Employees ‘ Pension Regulations, 1995 ” (hereinafter, referred to as “ Pension Regulations ” ), came into effect from 1.2.1996 as, per the Circular in CO;PER 074; 95-96. According to petitioners the said Pension Scheme, which was arrived at with the consent of the employees and officers ‘Union, favours only the employees continuing in service. The first petitioner ‘s date of retirement was on 31.3.1994 and the date of superannuation was on 30.7.1998 and he was receiving pension from 1.9.1998 onwards.

4. According to them that as per the Pension Scheme, even for the employees, who retired on Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short “V.R.S.” ), pension is to commence only from the date of superannuation. Before their retirement, they were persuaded to opt for V.R.S. and the Management of the Bank of Madura assured them that once Pension Scheme is introduced in the Bank, pension will be given for persons, who have retired on V.R.S. from the date of their retirement. Subsequently, they came to know that few employees, who opted and retired on V.R.S. during the year 2000, the pension was given tot them from the date of their retirement and not from the date of superannuation. Therefore, the petitioners appealed to the second respondent-Bank to consider their case and grant pension to them from the date of their retirement, they also sent a tetter to the second respondent-Bank on 11.11.2003, requesting to consider their request to pay the pension from 1.4.1994 and also claimed the benefit of medical insurance, referring to Rule 35(IV) of Pension Regulations, as per which, the pension amount shall be calculated based on average emoluments and it has to be recalculated as and when any revision in pay scales is implemented by the second respondent-Bank. Thus, according to the petitioners, the second respondent-Bank have the legal obligation to pay higher pension as and when, the scales are revised from time-to-time. The second respondent-Bank, by its reply dated 20.1.2004, refused to consider the request of the petitioners to recalculate the eligible pension under Rule 29(V) and (VI) of Pension Regulations by giving 5 years weightage in service, restricting to 33 years and also to recalculate eligible pension by taking into account of the subsequent salary revisions that has taken place in the second respondent-Bank, viz., on 1.4.1998 and 1.7.2001 and subsequently, in terms of Rule 35(IV) of Pension Regulations.

5. The petitioners further averred that after the amalgamation, as per Clauses 9 and 10 of the order of amalgamation, the employees of the transferee bank without any break or interference in service absolve all the schemes formulated by the transferee bank. But, the second respondent-Bank sent a circular, whereby, it introduce