Summary
A retired bank employee who missed the 30 October 2010 deadline fixed by a circular for opting into the Bank of India (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 applied four months late, pleading a short hospitalisation. The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition; the Division Bench allowed his appeal because the scheme was beneficial. The Supreme Court restored the dismissal: a beneficial policy with a time limit cannot be availed at the subject's convenience, wide publicity had been given, no legal right was denied so no mandamus could issue, and writ courts do not act on sympathy or come to the aid of the indolent.
Issues
- Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in interfering with the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition of a retiree who exercised his option to join the pension scheme after the deadline fixed by the bank's circular.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaIn exercising writ powers the High Courts do not come to the aid of the tardy, indolent and lethargic; while mandamus issues to reach injustice, the discretion must not be coloured by sympathy, grace, compassion or charity, which lie beyond the writ jurisdiction. Where no acceptable justification for the failure to act in time is offered, the High Court should not interfere. (¶ 18)
Held
- Where a policy is beneficial in nature but prescribes a time limit within which the subjects must act, it is not the law that the benefit can be availed beyond the stipulated period at any future time suiting the subject's convenience. The Division Bench erred in relying on the beneficial nature of the scheme to condone the belated option. (¶¶ 9, 10, 15)
- The Single Judge had recorded, on the bank's counter affidavit, that wide publicity of the option window had been given through local and national newspapers and the branches; the respondent did not show otherwise. The bank therefore observed, in letter and spirit, the directions in Calcutta Port Trust v. Anadi Kumar Das on communicating pension options to retirees, and no case of the circular being mere lip service was set up. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 20)
- The respondent, who admittedly returned from abroad on 1 September 2010, was not diligent in keeping himself aware of developments touching his interest; a four-day hospitalisation between 3 and 7 October 2010 could not excuse his failure to act within the period made available. (¶ 14)
- No one can ask for mandamus without a judicially enforceable and legally protected right. After the respondent failed to exercise the option by the deadline there was no denial of any legal right by the bank; the loss was attributable to him alone, he suffered no legal grievance, and the writ petition was not maintainable. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Considerations of sympathy or compassion have no place where a subject is called upon to exercise an option under a settlement executed between the employer and the unions representing the subject, which binds the parties during its validity; accepting belated options would unsettle the settlement itself and cause chaos and public inconvenience. (¶ 19)
- There being no unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the bank's decision-making process, the writ petition was rightly dismissed and the Division Bench had no occasion to interfere. (¶ 21)
Result
Appeal allowed. The Division Bench's judgment and order dated 7 March 2024 set aside; the Single Judge's judgment and order dated 22 November 2023 affirmed; the first respondent's writ petition stands dismissed.