BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusMUTHYALA SAIBABA SURYANARAYANA MURTHY & ANR.

                 [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
       Sengupta.

                      Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                             Judgment

       Dipankar Datta, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The appellants call in question the judgment and order dated 7th
       March, 2024 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court for
       the State of Telangana1, allowing a writ appeal2 carried by the first
       respondent from the judgment and order dated 22nd November, 2023
       of dismissal of his writ petition3 by a Single Judge of the same court.
3.     The solitary question arising for decision on this appeal is whether
       the Division Bench was justified in its interference with the order of
       dismissal of the writ petition.
4.     After serving the first appellant4 for about 25 years, the first respondent
       opted for voluntary retirement and was relieved from the service of
       BoI on 30th December, 2000.



1    High Court
2    Writ Appeal No. 188 of 2024
3    Writ Petition No. 29659 of 2011
4    BoI
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         123

Bank of India & Ors. v. Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr.


5.     On 24th August, 2010, BoI published Circular No. 104/645 inviting
       options from retired employees between 1st September, 2010 and
       30th October, 2010 to join the Bank of India (Employees’) Pension
       Scheme, 1995. The said circular recorded that the option to join the
       pension scheme was being extended in terms of an agreement /
       joint note dated 27th April, 2010 signed between the Indian Banks
       Association6 and various Officers’ Associations/Workmen Unions
       (United Forum of Bank Unions). The option was available to be
       exercised inter alia by employees of BoI who were in service prior
       to 29th September, 1995 and retired prior to the date of settlement,
       i.e., 27th April, 2010.
6.     The first respondent had travelled to the United States of America
       in March, 2010. He returned to India a week after the said circular
       was issued but much prior to the last date for exercise of option. He
       claimed that he had to undergo a surgery in the 1st week of October,
       2010. He also claimed that not being aware of the opportunity
       extended by BoI to exercise option within 30th October, 2010 and
       despite being eligible, he missed such opportunity. It was only on
       19th March, 2011, i.e., 4 (four) months beyond the stipulated date,
       that the first respondent proceeded to express his interest to opt for
       the pension scheme by submitting a representation on that day itself
       by filling up the requisite forms claiming that he derived knowledge
       of the said circular from two erstwhile employees of BoI.
7.     Option not having been exercised by the first respondent within
       the stipulated time, obviously, BoI did not accept such option. This
       triggered the writ petition, which the Single Judge dismissed. It was
       held that the period for exercise of option having expired by the
       time the first respondent exercised his option, the decision not to
       entertain the option was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary; hence,
       no interference was called for.
8.     Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent appealed. It is such appeal
       that has succeeded by reason of the impugned judgment and order
       of the Division Bench.



5    said circular
6    IBA
124                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


9.     We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
       perused the impugned judgment and order. The only reason that can
       be traced in the impugned judgment and order for the writ appeal
       to be allowed is found in paragraph 6 thereof, reading as follows:
             “6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions
             made by the learned counsel on either side, is of the
             view that the respondent-bank has issued Circular
             dated 24.08.2010 wherein a policy was taken to extend
             pension to all the retired employees. When such policy is
             beneficial in nature, the respondent-bank ought to have
             considered the application submitted by the appellant;
             though it was submitted belatedly after expiry of the
             deadline prescribed in the Circular 24.08.2010. As the
             appellant has undergone surgery during the relevant
             period of time, the lapse on his part can be condoned.
             Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in
             dismissing the writ petition and hence, the same is liable
             to be set aside.”
10. 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.
11. It is noted from the judgment and order of the Single Judge that wide
    publicity had been given by IBA as well as by BoI through local and
    national newspapers and also through its branches that employees,
    who are otherwise eligible, may opt for the pension scheme by 30th
    October, 2010. Such recording was made on perusal of the counter
    affidavit of BoI to the writ petition of the first appellant. It has not
    been shown by the first respondent that the contents of the counter
    affidavit, filed by BoI, either did not contain any such material or
    that even if it did contain such material, the same did not amount
    to wide publicity.
12. Our attention has been invited by learned counsel appearing for the
    appellants to a decision of this Court in Calcutta Port Trust and
    Ors. vs. Anadi Kumar Das (Captain) and Ors.7, in particular to
    paragraph 23 thereof, reading as follows:


7    (2014) 3 SCC 617
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                            125

Bank of India & Ors. v. Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr.


           “23. We would like to observe that whenever an employer
           introduces the pension scheme or makes the same
           applicable to retired employees and gives them opportunity
           to exercise option, the circulars/instructions issued for that
           purpose should either be communicated to the retirees or
           made known to them by some reasonable mode. Mere
           display of such notice/instructions on the notice board of the
           head office cannot be treated as an intimation thereof to the
           retired employees/officers. The employer cannot presume
           that all the retirees have settled in the city where the head
           office is located. If the employees belong to the services of
           the Central Government or its agencies/instrumentalities,
           they are likely to settle in their native places which may
           be far away from the seat of the Government or head
           office of the establishment or organisation. The retirees
           are not expected to frequently travel from their native
           places to the seat of the Government or head office to
           know about additional benefits, if any, extended by the
           Government or their establishment/organisation and it is
           the duty of the employer to adopt a suitable mechanism
           for communicating the decision to the retired employees
           so as to enable them to exercise option. This could be
           done either by publishing a notice in the newspaper about
           which the retirees are told at the time of their retirement
           or by sending copies of the circulars/instructions to the
           retirees or by sending a copy thereof to the association
           of the employees and/or officers with a direction to them
           to circulate the same among the retirees concerned. By
           taking advantage of the modern technology, the employer
           can also display the circulars/instructions on a designated
           website about which prior information is made available
           to the employees at the time of their retirement. If one of
           these modes is not adopted, the retired employees can
           legitimately complain that they have been denied right to
           exercise the option and can seek intervention of the court.”
13. In the absence of the first respondent proving to the contrary, we
    are left with no option but to hold that BoI did observe the aforesaid
    directions in letter and spirit and spared no effort to make it known
    to all the retired employees, eligible to opt for the pension scheme,
126                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       that they would be having the window of opportunity to so opt by
       submitting the requisite forms by 30th October, 2010.
14. It is the admitted case of the first respondent that he had returned
    to India from the United States of America on 1st September, 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 the first respondent, and that too for a short
    period of four days between 3rd October and 7th October, 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.
15. The Division Bench referred to the beneficial nature of the policy to
    grant relief to the first respondent. 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.
16. Almost half a century back, this Court in Mani Subrat Jain v. State
    of Haryana8 had sounded a word of caution as follows:
            “9. … It is elementary though it is to be restated that no
            one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There
            must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally
            protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can
            ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved
            only when a person is denied a legal right by someone
            who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from
            doing something. …”
17. In the present case, after the first respondent did not avail the
    opportunity to exercise option by 30th October, 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


8   (1977) 1 SCC 486
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                          127

Bank of India & Ors. v. Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr.


     a legal wrong. He did not suffer a legal grievance and had no legal
     peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. 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.
18. 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 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.
19. 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.
20. Since it had not been shown to the High Court that the said circular
    was not widely published and, therefore, opening up a window of
    opportunity for submission of options between 1st September and
    30th October, 2010 was nothing more than a mere lip service, no
    case for interference had been set up by the first respondent either.
21. Also, 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.
128                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


22. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds. The impugned
    judgment and order dated 7th March, 2024 is set aside and the
    judgment and order of the Single Judge dated 22nd November, 2023
    affirmed, with the result that the writ petition of the first respondent
    on the file of the High Court shall stand dismissed.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain