LexBANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus MUTHYALA SAIBABA SURYANARAYANA MURTHY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 120 : 2025 INSC 373 Bank of India & Ors. v. Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3829 of 2025) 18 March 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench was justified in interfering with the order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition by the eligible retired employee who had failed to exercise option under Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995 within the stipulated period. Headnotes† Service law – Pension – Pension scheme – Exercise of option by the eligible retired employees when not within the stipulated period – Effect – Bank-appellant no.1 invited options from the eligible retired employees to join the Bank Employees’ Pension Scheme – First respondent-employee of appellant no.1, though eligible, but did not exercise his option to apply for pension scheme within the stipulated period – He had travelled to United States and returned to India a week after the said circular was issued but much prior to the last date for exercise of option – He expressed his interest to opt for the pension scheme four months after the stipulated date claiming that he came to know of the scheme from the erstwhile empolyees of the Bank but the Bank did not accept the option – Writ petition by the employee dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court, however allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court – Correctness: Held: Whenever a policy is formulated, which is beneficial in nature for the subjects to be governed thereby but 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 * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 121 Bank of India & Ors. v. Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr. his convenience – Wide publicity was given by the Bank through local and national newspapers and also through its branches that employees, who are otherwise eligible, may opt for the pension scheme by the stipulated period – Employee not diligent enough to make himself aware of the developments touching his interest while he was abroad – After the employee did not avail the opportunity to exercise option by the last date, no occasion for denial or deprivation of a legal right of the employee by the appellants – Harm or loss arising out of failure of the employee to opt for the pension scheme not wrongful in the eye of law since it is he who has to be blamed for the situation – Thus, not having a legally protected right which could be judicially enforced by seeking a mandamus, the writ petition was not maintainable and the Single Judge rightly dismissed the same – Division Bench failed to realise that in exercise of writ powers u/Art. 226, the High Courts do not come to the aid of the tardy, the indolent, and the lethargic – 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 – There being no unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the process of decision making adopted by the Bank, writ petition rightly dismissed and interference by the Division Bench not called for – Impugned judgment set aside – Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995. [Paras 10, 11, 14, 15, 17-19, 21, 22] Case Law Cited Calcutta Port Trust and Ors. v. Anadi Kumar Das (Captain) and Ors. [2013] 12 SCR 862 : (2014) 3 SCC 617; Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana [1977] 2 SCR 361 : (1977) 1 SCC 486 – referred to. List of Acts Constitution of India. List of Keywords Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995; Eligible retired employees; Last date for exercise of option; Beneficial in nature; Deprivation of legal right; Considerations of sympathy, grace, charity, or compassion. 122 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3829 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 07.03.2024 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WA No. 188 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Som Raj Choudhury, Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Siddhant Goel, Prashant Kumar. Advs. for the Respondents: V. Shanth Kumar Mahale, Sr. Adv., V. Sridhar Reddy, Abhijit Sengupt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.