IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Premila David ...Petitioner Vs.

1.The General Manager (P)

Syndicate Bank Staff Welfare Association Head Office, Manipal 576 104.

2.The Chief Manager Syndicate Bank Kodambakkam Branch Kodambakkam Chennai 600 024. ...Respondents Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent pertaining to the circular passed on 16.9.2010 in Circular No.242- 2010-BC-PD-53-SWD, regarding “Syndicate Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation 1995-extending another option to join the existing pension scheme” and quash the same and direct the respondents to pay the pension benefits in accordance with the option form submitted by the petitioner to the first respondent and acknowledged by the second respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondents : Mr.P.Raghunathan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co for R1 & R2

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the circular dated 16.09.2010 issued by the first respondent. By the said circular, pursuant to the settlement dated 27.04.2010 entered into with the Workmen Unions and the Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 signed with the Officers’ Organisations, an additional option for pension was extended to non-optees who were in the service of the Bank prior to 29.09.1995, continued to be in service on or after the said date, and had not opted for pension earlier. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the said option was not made applicable to employees who were compulsorily retired from service by way of punishment.

2. The petitioner had served in the respondent Bank for more than 23 years and was compulsorily retired from service on account of misconduct, namely unauthorised absence. The order of compulsory retirement attained finality before this Court in the year 2010. At the time of compulsory retirement, the petitioner did not opt for pension and instead chose to receive the provident fund.

3. In the above circumstances, the impugned circular dated 16.09.2010 was issued by the first respondent. The petitioner submitted an option form on 05.10.2010 seeking to become a member of the Pension Fund. As the said request was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.32650 of 2013, seeking implementation of the settlement and Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 and for grant of pension from the date of retirement, i.e., 29.11.1999.

4. Pending consideration of the said writ petition, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the circular, as the same denied her the option to become a member of the Pension Fund on the ground that she had been compulsorily retired. Subsequently, W.P.No.32650 of 2013 was disposed of on 04.08.2020, reserving liberty to the petitioner to canvass all the issues raised therein in the present writ petition.

5. Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the circular denying employees who were compulsorily retired from service the option to become members of the Pension Fund is contrary to Regulation 33 of the Syndicate Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995. He further submitted that the Pension Regulations, 1995 are statutory in nature and that the circular cannot override the provisions of the said Regulations. Therefore, the denial of the option is arbitrary and discriminatory.

6. Per contra, Mr. P. Raghunathan, learned counsel for the respondent Bank, submitted that an employee who has been compulsorily retired from service is not entitled to exercise the option to become a member of the Pension Fund, as provided under the impugned circular. He further contended that the petitioner has challenged the circular in its entirety and not specifically assailed Clause 7 thereof, which excludes compulsorily retired employees. He also submitted that the petitioner had not reimbursed the employer’s provident