Supreme Court Upholds Time Limit For Pension Option, Sets Aside High Court Relief

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard the appeal by Bank of India against a Division Bench judgment of the Telangana High Court that had allowed a retired employee’s writ appeal seeking belated entry into the Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995. The narrow question was whether the Division Bench was justified in interfering with a Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition arising from the bank’s refusal to entertain an option submitted after the prescribed deadline.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench order dated 7 March 2024 and affirmed the Single Judge’s dismissal dated 22 November 2023. The Court held that the bank had given wide publicity to Circular No. 104/645 dated 24 August 2010, which opened the window to opt into the pension scheme between 1 September and 30 October 2010, and that the respondent retired employee failed to prove otherwise or to establish a legally enforceable right. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 did not extend to “the tardy, the indolent, and the lethargic” and that beneficial policies with time limits could not be availed of beyond the stipulated period. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 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.” The Court also stressed that “the high courts of the country do not come to the aid of the tardy, the indolent, and the lethargic.”

Background

The dispute arose after the first respondent, who had retired from Bank of India in December 2000, sought to join the Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Scheme pursuant to Circular No. 104/645 issued on 24 August 2010. The circular, issued pursuant to an agreement dated 27 April 2010 between the Indian Banks’ Association and officers’/workmen unions, offered eligible retired employees a one-time window from 1 September to 30 October 2010 to opt into the scheme. The respondent returned from the United States on 1 September 2010, said he underwent a short surgery in the first week of October, and asserted that he learned of the circular only belatedly. He submitted the option paperwork on 19 March 2011, some four months after the deadline; the bank did not accept the belated option.

The respondent’s writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge on the ground that the time limit had expired and the bank’s refusal was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. A Division Bench later allowed the writ appeal, condoning delay on compassionate grounds and treating the policy as beneficial. The Supreme Court reviewed the issue, examined whether the circular had been widely publicised and noted that the bank and IBA had issued publicity through local and national newspapers and through branches, as recorded in the bank’s counter-affidavit. Reliance was placed on this Court’s earlier pronouncements, including Calcutta Port Trust v. Anadi Kumar Das on the obligation to communicate circulars to retirees and Mani Subrat Jain on the limits of mandamus. The Supreme Court found no material to show the circular was not widely published, rejected sympathy-based intervention, and held that acceptance of belated options would unsettle negotiated settlements and cause administrative chaos. The appeal succeeded; the Division Bench order was set aside and the Single Judge’s dismissal was restored. No interim directions were recorded and no liberty beyond established rights was granted.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3829 OF 2025 (2025 INSC 373) [Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 24400 OF 2024] Case Title: Bank of India & Ors. v. Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the reported text For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the reported text