The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstancer; stated in the affidavit file<, in support of the petition, the High Court may be plee sed to suspend the order passed in W.p.No 14422 of 2019, Dated.28.05.2025 during the pendency of the arppeal counsel forthe Appe[ant: Ms. GHANCHAL REp sRr. p N DAYAKAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI DISHIT BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the frrllowing: ORDER i i l THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTIC E SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHII'DDIN WRIT APPEAL No.85O of2025 JUDGMENT: Heard Ms. Chanchal, learned counsel representing Sri P.N.Dayakar, learned counsel for the appellart

2. This writ appeai is directed against the order dated

28.O5.2025 passed in W.P'No.14422 of 2019, whereby the learned writ court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

3. In the writ petition, the appellant made the claim for pension under the pension scheme vide circular dated

13.07.2018, which clearly provided that the option to join pension scheme can be exercised on or before 22.08.2018' The appellant's application addressed on 27 - 1 1.20 18 was not processed, as it was made beyond time ' The respondents Bank (hereinafter referred to as, "the Bank") took a plea that the circular was notified on the notice board and also in the website of the Bank, which is l sufflcient notice. On the other hand, it is to be taken note that the appellant was dismissed from service on 19.11.1998. In W.P.No.t3987 of 1999, the order of dismissal was; modified into compulsory retirement vide judgment dal.ed 17.03.201S. The appellant,s gratuity amount \1ras F,aid after setting off the loans in terms of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuitv Act, 1972. The learned writ. court, after consideration of the pleadings on record and the decisions cited by the rival parties, held that the appellant's claim is beyond the cut off date specified unde:r the pension scheme and could not have been entertairred. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the judgment of the learned Single Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in K.G.Krishna Murthy v. Union of Indiat. He has also relied upon the decision of ' 2002 SCC Ont_ine Kar 514 J the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singhz.

5. The scheme under '"vhich the appellant was eligible to avail pension was apparently a onetime scheme, which prescribes a cut-off date. It also prescribes that it is extendable to compulsorily retired officers who have been retired from service of the Bank on or before the date of the settlement i.e.,27th Aprll,2OlO. The cut-off dates prescribed under such schemes have sanctity. The cut-off date is not under challenge. In the absence of any demonstrable grounds of arbitrariness, the writ court is advised to avoid interfering in the fixation of cut-off date, which the learned writ court has duly observed. It is surprising that the appellant, who . had been dismissed lrom service in the year 1998 and his dismissal was modified to the punishment of compulsory retirement by interference of this court in previous round of litigation, I \ was totally oblivious of such a scheme and failed to meet the cut-off date i.e., 22.O8.2O18, though the pension t (zoos) s scc 6+s i l ..i 4 \ 'L --- -..,'r I - scheme was duly uploaded on the website ar-ld also on the notice board of the Bank. Publication on the website is sufficient notice to the public at largc and, more so, the employees of the Bank.

6. We hane also taken note of the judgment rendered in the case of K.G.Krishna Murthy (supra) relied upon b5r thr: appellant. \Ve are, however, not persuaded by thr: reasonings rccorded therein that even il thc publication u,as made in the newspaper, it did not fulfil the criteria ol proper serrrice or actual scrvice. The case of Tarsem SingtL (supra) stands on a different footing. It related ro a case ol denial of disability pension. The Apex Court held it to be a. continuing wrong. However, the Apex Court observed that. the consequential relief relating to arrears normally should be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date o1' filing of the writ petition. In the said case, rhere was a delay of sixteen years in seeking disability pension by the respondent. No issue of fixation of any cut off date for obtaining pension under a pension scheme was involved in the said case. The ratio of the said decision is therefore not -) applicable to the present case. In those circumstances, the learned writ court rightly held that once the circular had been notified in the Bark's q,ebsite under the retirees portal, it cannot be said that the appellant was not informed or aware of the same. We, therefore, do not find any error in the impugned judgment calling for interference

7. Accordingly, the instant appeai is dismissed. However, there sha-ll be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE GOPY// SD/.N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. P. N. DAYAKAR, Advocate [OPUC] i. o;; cc io sni. otsHlr BHATTACHARJEE' Advocate [oPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies BM LS HIGH COURT DATED:07108t2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.850 of 2025 ( :.) /./'. riL l.; ,r. t. 7 '. :\' 2 0 0[I 296 - riF^\l C,, i{- .\..., -i,' DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 4 q $ l I I