IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.04.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P. No. 28967 of 2019 R.Subbaiah … Petitioner -vs-

1. Indian Bank Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director Corporate Office / Head Office

254 to 260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai Royapettah, Chennai-600014. 2. Assistant General Manager Indian Bank Corporate Office /Head Office HRM Department, I.R.C.C., II Floor 254 to 260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai Royapettah, Chennai-600014. ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned letter bearing CO/HRM/CRS PEN/28822 dated 28.08.2019 issued by the second respondent and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to process the pension application of the petitioner and sanction pension to the applicant within a time frame.

For Petitioner : Mr. K.M.Ramesh, Senior Counsel For Mr.V.Subramani For Respondents : Mrs.S.R.Sumathy

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the letter bearing CO/HRM/CRS PEN/28822 dated 28.08.2019 issued by the second respondent and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to process the pension application of the petitioner and sanction pension to the applicant within a time frame.

2. Heard Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.V.Subramani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.R.Sumathy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

3. The petitioner, who was an employee of the respondent bank as Sub- staff, had gone on compulsory retirement on 07.03.2009. It is claimed by the petitioner that he has earlier filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 27916 of 2018 challenging the compulsory retirement and the same got dismissed. In the meantime, the respondent bank announced a scheme of pension even for the compulsory retirement employees with a condition to refund 156% of the Provident fund received by them. Subsequently, the petitioner had withdrawn the pending writ petition in W.P. No. 27916 of 2018 and applied for pension under Compulsory Retirement Pension Scheme(CRPS). However, the same has not been considered. Even prior to that, the communication was sent to the petitioner to exercise his option to join in the pension scheme and he also exercised his option accordingly. When the petitioner by letter dated 10.08.2019 sought permission to deposit the refund money, it was rejected by the impugned order dated 28.08.2019.

4. In the impugned order, it is stated that the petitioner has not provided funds towards the refund of the bank's contribution to the provident fund and the interest accrued thereon, which has already been received by the petitioner on his retirement together with the payment over and above the same amount at 56% of the amount and hence, his application could not be considered. It appears that the petitioner has ready been informed to have funds in his account towards the above due before the stipulated date of 28.01.2019, but the petitioner failed to deposit the amount before the stipulated date. On 10.08.2019, the petitioner has sent a representation stating that due to unavoidable situation, he has not remitted the amount and he sought permission to remit the amount as claimed. But only on receipt of the same, the impugned order has been passed. Even the petitioner's representation itself would show that the petitioner did not comply with the condition of making funds available towards the refund before the stipulated date and thereafter, according to his convenience, he has approached the bank to extend the time and permit him to provide the funds towards refund and that was rejected.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's option could not be processed because he did not provide adequate funds before the stipul