Supreme Court judgment concerning a retired Bank of India employee, MuthyalaSaibaba Suryanarayana Murthy, and his attempt to join a pension scheme after the stipulated deadline.The Bank of India (BoI) initially denied his late application, a decision upheld by a Single Judge, but this was overturned by a High Court Division Bench which cited the beneficial nature of the policy and the employee’s surgery. The Supreme Court, however, reverses the Division Bench’sruling, asserting that wide publicity was given to the scheme and that a lack of diligence on the employee’s part does not create a legal right for a delayed option. The court emphasised that High Courts, when exercising writ powers, should not interfere based on sympathy when there’s no legal right violated, ultimately affirming the original dismissal of the employee’s petition.
Constitution of India, Article 14 and 226 – Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995 – Service Law – Option for pension scheme – 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. 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 – 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 – 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 – There was absolutely no occasion for the Division Bench to interfere and allow the writ appeal of the first respondent – Impugned judgment liable to be 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.
(Para 11 to 22)
Bank Of India V. Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy And Anr.
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 373: (DoJ 18-03-2025)
