IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.688 OF 2026 Dated 09^th January, 2026 Between:

P.Padmaja. …Petitioner AND Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Finance, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Jeevan Deep Building Sansad Marg, New Delhi and 2 others.

…Respondents

O R D E R :

With the consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioner for grant of “extension of pension to the resignees” vide impugned letter No.Ref:HR:EBD:33:2024 dated 28.10.2024 as illegal, Improper, arbitrary, unjust, malafide violative of Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside impugned letter No.Ref: HR:EBD:33:2024 dated 28.10.2024 issued by respondent No.3 and to further direct the respondents to extend the pension scheme and to Join the Pension scheme pursuant to the Union Bank staff circular No.8322 dt.16^th July 2024 In terms of Rule 17 in chapter IV of Union Bank of India Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, considering the service rendered by the petitioner on sanctioned leave encashment from the date of her eligibility with all consequential benefits and to pass…”

3. Heard Sri Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent No.1; and Dr.K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Standing Counsel for Union Bank of India, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is Assistant Manager (Resignee) and that respondent No.3 issued impugned proceedings dated 28.10.2024 stating that the qualifying service of the petitioner is less than 20 years, therefore, she is not eligible to join the pension scheme. As such, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.2 on 22.11.2024 by explaining the reasons and enclosing relevant documentary evidence and seeking to extend the option of pension to the Resignees. However, no action has been taken by respondent No.2 so far. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to direct respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 22.11.2024 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with Union Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, within a time-frame to be stipulated by this Court.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 fairly submits that respondent No.2 will consider the petitioner’s representation dated 22.11.2024 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 22.11.2024 submitted by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with Union Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate a copy of the decision to the petitioner.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 09.01.2026 TMK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.688 OF 2026 Date : 09.01.2026 TMK