Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said whenever a policy is formulated, which is beneficial in nature for the subjects to be governed thereby but, at the same time, prescribes a time limit for the subjects to act, it is not and cannot be the law that the proposed benefits can be availed of by a subject beyond the stipulated period and at any time in future suiting his convenience.  

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan allowed an appeal by the Bank of India (BoI) against the Telangana High Court's division bench judgment which reversed a single judge's order dismissing a plea by Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy and another to avail benefit of pension scheme beyond the deadline to file his claim.

The court said after the first respondent did not avail the opportunity to exercise an option by October 30, 2010, there was no occasion for denial or deprivation of a legal right of the first respondent by the appellants. 

"The harm or loss arising out of failure of the first respondent to opt for the pension scheme was not wrongful in the eye of law since it is he who had to be blamed for the situation where he found himself. The first respondent had neither sustained any injury to any legally protected interest nor had he been subjected to a legal wrong. He did not suffer a legal grievance and had no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on," the bench said.

Thus, not having a legally protected right which could have been judicially enforced by seeking a mandamus, the writ petition of the first respondent was plainly not maintainable and, thus, the single judge rightly dismissed the same, the bench added.

The court said the division bench, in course of its interference with the order dismissing the writ petition, failed to realise that in exercise of writ powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the high courts of the country do not come to the aid of the tardy, the indolent, and the lethargic. 

"This golden truth has to be borne in mind by all courts exercising high prerogative writ jurisdiction. While mandamus will issue to reach injustice, wherever found, it is equally true that exercise of discretion should not unnecessarily be coloured by considerations of sympathy or grace or compassion or charity. These are beyond the scope of the high courts’ writ powers. In cases such as these, where acceptable justification for the failure to act with expedition is not proffered, the high courts should stay at a distance," the bench said.     

The court further opined that the division bench should have also done well to remember that considerations of sympathy, grace, charity, or compassion do not have any place where a subject is called upon to exercise his option upon a settlement executed by and between the parties, one of which represents the subject himself, and such settlement is binding on the parties during its validity. 

"If belated options are to be accepted, it would bring in its train chaos, confusion and public inconvenience without there being any end in sight and unsettle the very settlement reached by and between the parties which is the foundation of the rights of the subjects," the bench said.  

As per facts of the matter, having served in the bank for about 25 years, the first respondent opted for voluntary retirement and was relieved from the service on December 30, 2000. 

On August 24, 2010, BoI published a circular inviting options from retired employees between September 1, 2010 and October 30, 2010 to join the Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995. 

The first respondent, who had travelled to the United States of America in March, 2010, returned to India a week after the said circular was issued but much prior to the last date for exercise of option. However on March 9, 2011, i.e., four months beyond the stipulated date, he applied for the scheme, which was rejected by the bank. 

On a writ petition, the single judge held that the period for exercise of option having expired by the time the first respondent applied for it, the decision not to entertain the option was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary; hence, no interference was called for. The division bench, however, allowed his appeal.

On the challenge made by the bank to the decision, the bench said, "We have no hesitation to hold that the division bench was entirely wrong in interfering with the dismissal of the writ petition, as ordered by the single judge".           

The bench noted the single judge had recorded that wide publicity had been given by Indian Bank Association as well as by BoI through local and national newspapers and also through its branches that employees, who were otherwise eligible, might opt for the pension scheme by October 30, 2010.

"In the absence of the first respondent proving to the contrary, we are left with no option but to hold that BoI spared no effort to make it known to all the retired employees, eligible to opt for the pension scheme, that they would be having the window of opportunity to so opt by submitting the requisite forms by October 30, 2010," the bench said.

The court noted the first respondent had returned to India from the United States of America on September 1, 2010. However, he was not diligent enough to make himself aware of the developments touching his interest while he was abroad. The bogey of hospitalisation raised by him, and that too for a short period of four days between October 3 and October 7, 2010, was not such so as to overlook his recalcitrance in not acting with intent and purpose within the period made available by the said circular, it said. 

The division bench referred to the beneficial nature of the policy to grant relief to the first respondent.

The court held that there being no unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the process of decision making adopted by the appellants, the writ petition rightly came to be dismissed and there was absolutely no occasion for the division bench to interfere and allow the writ appeal of the first respondent.    

The bench thus set aside the judgment of the division bench of March 7, 2024, and affirmed the decision of the single bench of November 22, 2023. 

Case Title: Bank of India & Ors Vs Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr