20081. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR & EXECUTIVE OFFICER ICICI BANK LTD. CORPORATE OFFICE v. 1. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE & COMPANY AFFAIRS (BANKING & INSURANCE)

RM. CHIDAMBARAM 129. R.MUTHUVEERAPPAN 130. P.NACHIAPPAN 131. P.KOTHANDARMAN 132. S.ALAGAPPAN 133. C.RAMASAMY 134. K.CHOCKALINGAM 135. RM. SIVARAMAN 136. N.VENKATACHALAM 137. AL. NATARAJAN 138. C.SUNDAR 139. J.MOHAN 140. S.SATHYANARAYANAMOORTHY 141. AR. THENAPPAN142. INDIRA ARUNACHALAM 143. T.RAMASAMY 144. R.SRINIVASAN 145. S.NAGAPPAN 146. K.VAIRAVAN 147. PL. RAMANATHAN 148. S.SEVUGANCHETTY 149. S.RAMANATHAN 150. N.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM 151. N.NACHIAPPAN 152. RM. RAJALAKSHMI 153. PRATAP NALLATHAMBI 154. VE. VAIRAVAN 155. LS. SHARMA 156. KM. ARUMUGAM 157. N.NAGAPPAN 158. S.SAMBANDAM 159. PR. LAKSHMANAN 160. NAGAMMA NAIDU 161. AR. CHIDAMBARAM 162. K.SUBBAIAH 163. N.PURUSHOTHAMAN 164. A.KARUNAKARAN 165. R.RAMADOSS 166. V.RAMAKRISHNAN 167. V.MEYAMMAI 168. PL. SUBRAMANIAN 169. SP. SHANMUGAM 170. AM. PR. AMMAYAPPAN 171. A.RAMANATHAN 172. AR. ARIYAPPAN 173. PREMA SESHADRI 174. T.DESIKAN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

CHINTHAMANI KRISHNAN 176. PL RAJARAJESWARAN 177. N.RAJALAKSHMI 178. VR MUTHAIAH 179. M.V.MANICKAM 180. VE. AR. NAGAPPAN 181. RM.CHELLAPPAN 182. RM.RAMANATHAN 183. S.SUBRAMANIAN 184. M.KUMARAPPAN 185. K.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO 186. S.NACHIAPPAN 187. A.BALAKRISHNAMOORTHY 188. PC. CHANDRASEKAR RAO 189. EV. RAMAKRISHNA RAO 190. S.RAMASUBRAMNIAN 191. CT. CHIDAMBARAM 192. N.VISALAKSHI 193. N.KRISHNAPPAN 194. M.VEERAPPAN 195. SP. VISALAKSHMI 196. V.SUNDARESAN 197. VE. SATHYAMOORTHY 198. V.MURUGAPPAN 199. A.SATHYANARAYANA 200. V.RAMANATHAN 201. PL MEENAKSHISUNDARAM 202. V. ELUMALAI 203. M.SRINIVASAN 204. N.MEENAL 205. AR. SINGARAM 206. S.KRISHNAN 207. S.EDWIN XAVIER208. M.NARAYANAN 209. MR.GOBALRAM 210. R.SUKUMAR 211. K.RAMACHANDRAN 212. SP. PARVATHY 213. K.SENTHILNATHAN 214. A.THIRUNAVUKARASU 215. M.SABARATHINAM 216. S.SELVAM 217. L.SURIYA KALA 218. M.ULAGAPPAN 219. AL.CHOCKALINGAM 220. R.RAVIKUMAR 221. K.S.RAMESH https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.HARIDOSS223. V.NAGAPPAN 224. SANJEEV DHEER 225. VIRENDERSINGH 226. GEETHA DINGHRA 227. SNGEWETHA ARORO 228. MUKESH KAPOOR 229. PRADIP KUMAR GUPTA 230. S.VAIDYANATHAN231. RM.VALLIAPPAN 232. RM.DHAKSHINAMOORTHY 233. N.GNANASAMBADAN 234. TS.MARAGADHAMBAL 235. R.MANOHARAN 236. R.SUNDARAM 237. T.CHOCKALINGAM 238. M.VAIRAVAN 239. S.KUMARAGURUBARAN 240. VR.VALLIAPPAN 241. L.MUTHU 242. AL.MEENAKSHISUNARAM 243. SM.SINGARAM 244. S.SAMBAMOORTHY 245. RM.MOHAN 246. RM.V.RAMANATHAN 247. R.SHANMUGASUNDARAM 248. C.SANKARASUBRAMANIAN 249. PL.KASI 250. PL.MURUGAPPAN 251. A.SATTANATHAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERSWA.No.1437/08:2. M.SEVUGAN CHETTYRESPONDENT/PETITIONERWA.No.1438/08:2. S. ALAGPPAN 3. G. CHANDRASEKARAN 4. RAMKARUPPAIAH 5. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN 6. M. VASANTHA 7. PH. SHARMA 8. S. CHANDRAMOULI 9. K. ANNAMALAI 10. C. MANIVANNA 11. V. PALANIAPPAN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

G. KRISHNAN 13. M. RAMASAMY 14. P. NAGENDRAN 15. NR.NARASIMHAN 16. R. SAMBASIVA REDDY 17. M. KARUPPAIAH 18. P. THARIGARAJ 19. SP.NAHCIAPPAN 20. R. MURALIDHARAN 21. K. SHANTHAKUMARI 22. K. VENKATACHALAM 23. RM.SUNDARAM 24. SV.SEVIYAPPAN 25. M. SIRNIVASAN 26. D. VENKATARAMAN 27. M. SELVARAJ 28. R. NAGARAJAN 29. AR.ARUNACHALAM 30. M. KAMESH 31. D. SHANMUGAVELU 32. V. PONNALAGAMMAI 33. AL.SAHAPPAN 34. V. ALAGAPPAN 35. PL.CHOCKALINGAM 36. S. KULANDAYAN 37. PL.MURUGAPPAN 38. KR.SUBRAMANIAN 39. MRS.ANJALI DATRE 40. GOUDA VIJALAKSHMI41. N.NACHIAPPAN42. RAMOLA BERNES43. M.VEERABADRAN44. V. GANAPATHYSUBRAMANIAN45. R. RATHINAVELU46. S. PARTHASARATHY47. S. LAKSHMANAN48. HR.KAVERI49. KR RAMASAMY 50. K.ARUMUGAM 51. RM SETHURAMAN52. V.MEENAL53. AR RAMANATHAN54. K.ABDUL JAFFAR55. N.RAJENDRAN56. YVS BAKARAN57. M.NALLIYAPPAN58. SP RAMASAMY https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN60. VR.MUTHAIH61. D.MANGALAM62. G.SIVAPRAKASAM63. JP SURENDRA SING64. AN MEYAMMAI65. A.SOLAYAPPAN66. N.PALANIAPPAN67. S.SUBRAMANIAN68. V.SUNDARAMOORTHY69. SM UMAYAL70. LALIHA SURIYA MOORTHY71. AR NATARAJAN72. R.SUBRAMANIYAM73. C.TAMILARASI74. N.SOLACHI75. T.SAROJA76. S.PICHAIAMMAL77. S.NACHIAPPAN78. V.MANOHARAN79. KR ALAGAPPAN80. RM SUBRAMANIAN81. CP JANAKI82. A.DEVARAJAN83. U.MURUGAN84. K.VAGESAN85. K.CHOCKALINGAM86. A.RAMASAMY87. MHD. ASHRAF ALI88. V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN89. M.THIRUNAVUKKARASU90. V.PALANIAPPAN91. S.PALANIAPPAN92. V.RAMASUBRAMANIAM93. RM SUBRAMANIAN94. K.PALANIAPPAN95. R.KRISHNAMOORTHY96. M.LAKSHMIPATHY RAO97. T.K.SRIDHARAN98. AZAR AHMED BIJLEE99. VIJAYARAGHAVAN100. KARU NATARAJAN101. RM.RAMU102. G.PADMASINI103. R.JAYACHANDRAN104. V.S.CHANDRA105. PL.KARUPPANCHETTY https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

KL.SUBRAMANIAN107. AL.PALANIAPPAN108. R.INDIRA109. PL.GOVINDAN110. SPN.NARAYANAN111. P.SUNDARAMURTHY112. M.RAMASAMY113. V.SARAVANAN114. M.PADMAVATHY115. KR.CHINNAPICHAPPAN116. RM.RUKKUMANI117. S.GOBINDAN118. AL.SOMASUNDARAM119. A.SHOBALATHA DEVI120. N.GIRIJAKUMARI121. RM.LAKSHMANAN122. SM.VEERAPPAN123. V.SOBA RANI124. T.SINGARAM125. S.SUKUMAR126. R.PANDITHURAI127. B.ETHIRAJ128. RM ALAGAPPAN129. M.ALAMELU130. K.JEYAKUMARI131. KR.MUTHUKARUPPAN132. E.SOUNDARAPANDIAN 133. P.THIYAGARAJAN 134. R.PARAKALAN135. M.MOHAMED NAZIR136. G.SESHADRI137. M.VEERAPPAN138. P.GANESAN139. PL.MEYAPPAN140. M.KUMAR141. G.SOMASUNDARAM142. G.NAGESWARA RAO143. R.V.S.RANGAO RAO144. S.MURUGESAN145. SP SUBRAMANIAN146. N.KARUPPAIAH147. K.VISALAKSHI148. PVS GANAPATHY RAO149. V.SUBRAMANIAN150. M.CHOCKALINGAM151. S.SITHIVINAYAGAM152.V.PALANIAPPAN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.RAJESWARI154. C.KARUNAKARAN155. T.ULAGANATHAN156. CH.SATHYANARAYANAN157. REHA MALHOTRA158. G.BULLIBABU159. A.ARUNACHALAM160. V.ALAGAPPAN161. AR.RAJAMANI162. K.ALAGAPAN163. M.BLASUBRAMANIAN164. K.DHAKSHINAMOORTHY165. D.RAJAGOPALAN166. S.SIVAKAMI NARAYANANAN167. M.VENKATACHALAM168. SP GOBALAKRISHNAN169. A.NAGARAJAN170. M.BALASUBRAMANIAN171. M.KARUPPAIAH 172. P.PREMNATH 173. RM.RAJENDRAN174. M.THIRUNAVUKKARASU175. N.KARUPPAN CHETTY176. N.NACHIAPPAN177. K.SUBRAMANIAN178. L.KANNAN179. K.RAJAN180. L.NARAYANAN181. P.SUBRAMANIAN182. A.RAJENDRAN183. PVH SUNDARSANA RAO 184. N.PALANIAPPAN 185. A.R.NARAYANAN186. S.VENKITRAMAN, TRICHY187. S.VENKITARAMAN, MADURAI188. N.VITALDASS BHATT189. T.S.THIYAGARAJAN190. A.JAYPAL191. S.KARUPPAIAH192. SM.DEIVANAI193. T.KALYANI194. TR.MANI195. MR.THIYAGARAJAN196. A.AYYASAMI197. N.ARUNACHALAM198. R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN199. KR.NATARAJAN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

AR.SUBBAIAH201. L.PALANIAPPAN202. A.KUMARAPPAN203. N.ARUNACHALAM204. P.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM205. S.BALASUBRAMANIAN206. KN.PRABHAKAR GUPTA207. SP ARUNACHALAM208. M.KANNAPPAN209. RAJU VD210. S.SUBRAMANIAN211. P.NARANAMOORTHY212. DV.DEVENDRA213. R.NAGU214. P.SABARATHINAM215. M.RAJENDRAN216. P.ABDUL GANI217. R.BHANUMATHI218. SP.RAMASAMY219. V.KASTHURIENGAN220. PL.VISWANATHAN221. M.VALLIAMMAL222. AL.MEENAL223. N.THAVAMANI224. PR.PANNA225. SR.SHYAMALA226. DWARAKA SHETTY227. A.SUBRAMANIAN228. CB.MEENAKUMARI229. CT.ARUNACHALAM230. AR.NATARJAN231. A.KANNAPPAN232. G.BASKARAN233. PR.PL.PERIYAKARUPPAN234. VD.LOGANATHAN235. K.ALAGUSUNDARAM236. PL.VISALAKSHI237. KN.VENKATARAMANI238. R.SUBBAIAH239. VR.SEETHA240. PL.PALANIYAPPAN241. DEVENDRA PAI.M242. AN.THANNERMALAI243. MELAPPA E.CHIKKANARGUDI244. V.SANKARANARAYANAN245. S.RADHA246. N.CHOCKALINGAM https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.SUKANYA248. V.RAMASUBRAMANIYAN249. R.RATHI250. M.PALANIAPPAN251. RM.LAKSHMANAN252. S.CHANDRASEKARAN253. M.MURUGAPPAN254. H.VISWANATHAN255. V.VISWANATHAN256. R.SUBRAMANIYAN257. N.THIYAGARAJAN258. MEENAKSHI THIYAGARAJAN259. P.SASIKALA DEVE NAVANEETHAM260. V.KUMARAPAN261. PRABHU SETHURAMAN.S262. NATARAJAN.AR263. S.RAMU264. C.SUBRAMANIAM..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTSWA.No.1439/08 :2. THIRUVENEKARASU3. L.LAKSHMANAN 4. K.MUTHA5. SAVITHA TALWAR6. K.R.KARUPPIAH7. D.GNANANANDAM8. YAGESH KANILAL PATNI9. S.SRIDHARAN10. GABAKABAHI B. PRIKH11. NARESH R KANDR12. AVANISH JITENDRA BELAI13. DILIPKUMAR J TIRVILDI14. V.VALLIAPPAN15. S.S.BAMAGUDA16. KANTILAL NARODAI17. HAMISH AGEHDNRA DESAI18. S.P.VENKATCHALAM19. P.C.SONI20. DAVSINHA21. MAHENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA22. KUSUM SAWHNEY23. BISWAJIT MAITRA24. TARUN KUMAR DAS BISWAS25. DILIIPKUMAR DEBNATH26. PRITIMORY BANARJEE27. MUTHIAH K https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

SATHIAMOORTHY RM29. RAJKUMAR KESARA30. ALAGAPPAN A.L31. SAMIR KUMAR MITRA32. ANNAMALAI PIL33. MUTHUSAMY E34. VISWANATHAN35. SEKAR CHOUDRY36. SOMESH CHAKRABARTHY37. SRIKANTA V38. SUBBIAH S.L39. PAPANNA VM40. SUBRAMANIAM P41. SHYMALA GURURAJAN42. SEKAR CHOUDRY SAKTHI DAS THAKUR43. LAKSHMI MADHAVAN44. RAJESH CHANDRA GUPTA45. K.S.KANNAN46. KARTIKAYA CHANDRA BISWAS47. PRANAB ROY48. P.SUBRAMANIAN49. RANJAN DUTTA ..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTSWA.No.1440/08 :2. KR CHANDRAN3. A. MUTHUKKARUPPAN4 T. KANNAN5. AR ARUNACHALAM 6.BV CHANDRALEKA7.A.VASANTHI8.U.VAIRAVAN9.JAGADESH N.GAJJAR10.PANKAJKUMAR PANNALAL SHAH11.S.SUBRAMANIA PILLAI12.KR PALANI MUTHU13.SANJIV S MAHULIKAR14.PRAKASH R CHAUBAL15.S.SENTHILSVEL16.S.SOLACHI17.M.K.MENON18.R.NARESH KUMAR19.MEYYAPPAN L20.RAJAGOPALAN V21.V.SUBRAMANIA PILLAI22.HASMUKH D.PRAJAPATI23.A. GEORGE SANTHANAKUMAR https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

24.MAMBHAI M SOLANKI25.HITENDRA RAMLAL SHAH26.AMIT BATTACHARYA27.DIMAN GOSH28.S.THIYAGARAJAN29.SANJAY BASNDOPATHYAY30.BHUDEV CHAUDHARI31.ANURADHA SRIDHAR32.BHOLA NATH SHAW33.A.ANNAMALAI34.TAPAS RR BASU35.RABIN CHANDRA DAS36.BIMAN JOSE37.RM CHOCKALINGAM38.NANI GOBAL NATH39. SUSY THOMAS40.SWAPAM KUMAR SABA41.SAVITHRI SANKARAN42.PADMAKUMAR43.MEENA BHARAT BHATT44.N.RAJAGOPALAN45.HEMAXI P MEHTA46.BHASKAR Z VYAPAR47.HITESH H. BHAT48.SATHI KANNAN49.S.ARUNACHALAM50.RATNAM VENITACHALAM51.KK JAYANTHI52.RAMESH NARAYAN NAYAK53.ARJUN R GHANEKAR54.BALWANT TRIMBAK PAITHNKAR55.CHIMMOY BHATTACHARYA56.V.MUTHAIAH57.E.MOHAN58.DEEPAK R RENGANEKAR59.HEMANT KATA60.LATHA SUNDARRAJAN61.K.SRIRAMAN62.KODURI NAGARAJA RAO63.P.J.BASTIAN64.N.USHA KAMAKSHI65.RAM NARESI SHARMA66.V.RAMACHANDRAN67.M.VEERAMANI68.S.PRADHAP..RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN WP.NO.1421/2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WA.No.1441 of 2008 :2.M.JEYAPAL3.JANAK KUMAR AJITBHAI SHAH4.DEEPAK JYANTILAL SHAH5.NEELAM BAREJA6.DEBJANI BASU7.KKABRI MAJUMDAR8.ARCHANA KANUNGO9.BHARAJI BOSE10.MAILRAYEE BANJERJEE11.KRISHNAKALI MITRA12.TAPTI SHINHA13.SAMIT KUMAR BASU14.BANI SEN15.M.P.MADAN MOHAN16.RINA BHATTACHARYA17.AMAR CHAKRABORTHY18.SUIGDHAMITRA19.SANAT KHNA20.N.ANANDAN21.KRISHNA CHANDRA BATACHARAYA22.ASHOK KUMAR GUHA23.NIRMAL BATTACHARYA24.GUTAM LAHA25.V.RAVINDRAN NAIR26.V.HARIKUMAR27.FIROZ SHAH..RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN WP.NO.8809/2004WA.No.1442 of 2008 :2.A.KALYANI3.R M CHIDAMBARAM4.M.M.ELANGO5.N.NARAYANAN6.D.SRINIVAS7.R.SUNDARAM8.RENU BALA BIBNDLISH9.NIRMAL KUMNAR10.R.SUKUMAR11.K.R.SIVAGAMI12.K A M N PARMILARANI13.B S SAROJA14.S.VENUGOPAL15.R.VALLIAPPAN16.K.HARIBABU17.R.BALRAJ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18.NILIMA PRADEEP BHISE19.B.SARAVANAN20.PETNAKOLI NAGAAJ21.K.R.SRIMATHEE22.THANGAMMA MATHIEW23.S.KALIYAPERUMAL24.R.BHANUMATHY25.G.MANGALAM26.S.RAJA ELAYAKUMAR27.S.PRITHIVIRAJ28.T.GURUMURTHY29.K.SHYAM SUNDAR30.M.UMAYAL31.K.PARAMASIVAM32.A.SUJATHA33.DEBASISH MULLICK34.K.NAGAMANI35.D.SAMSON36.K.SEKAR37.MR NARAYANAN38.L. M NAGAPPAN39.K.WILSON40.S.SOMASUNDARAM41.DEIVAKADATCHAM..RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN WP.NO.11180/2004W.A. No.1435 of 2008 to 1442/2008 filed against the order dated26th Nov., 2008, passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No.32502 of2003, 36782, 37150, 37197, 37739, 36764/03 & 1421, 8809 & 11180/04.WP.32502/03 :Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondentsto pay pension according to the regulation of pension scheme in viewof Rule 2(za), 2(zca), 35(i) and 35(ii) of Bank of Madura EmployeesPension Regulations, 1995.WP.36782/03, 37197/03, 37739/03, 1421/04, 8809/04 & 1180/04 :Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent Bank to paypension as per pension Regulation 1995.WP.37150/03 :Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent Bank to considerthe application dated 29.08.2003 filed by the petitioner to sanctionthe pension as per the Scheme viz., Bank of Madura PensionRegulations 1995. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellants: Mr.

A.L.Somayaji, SC, for Mr. R.SankaranarayananWA.1435 TO 1442 OF 2008MP.NO.1 OF 2008 (8 MPs.)For AppellantMr.A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel M/s. R.Sankaranarayanan -in all WA's.For RespondentsMr.A.S.Chakravarthy - R1-in all WA'sMr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel forMr.L.J.Krishnamurthy - R2-in all WA'sRR3, 5 to 21 - in WA.1435/08RR3 to 8, 10 to 19, 21 to 68, 70,71, 73 to 103, 105 to 129, 130 to 134, 135, 136, 138 to 155, 157 to 170, 172 to 234, 236 to 248,250 to 251- in WA.1436/08RR3 to 44, 47 to 69, 71 to 77, 79 to 82, 84 to 87, 89 to 96, 98 to 109, 111, 113 to 117, 119 to 124, 126, 127, 129 to 137, 139 to 156, 158 to 165, 166 to 170, 172 to 178, 180 to 188, 172 to 178, 180 to 188, 190 to 213, 216 to 220, 222 to 229, 231, 233 to 236, 238, 239, 241 to 248, 250 to 253, 255 to 261, 263 and 264-in WA.1438/08.RR3 to 7, 9 to 11, 13, 14, 18 to 28, 31 to 41, 43 to 49 -in WA.1439/08.RR3, 4,6,8,10,11,13 to 17, 19 to 29, 31 to 35, 37, 39,41 to 48, 50 to 56, 60 to 62, 65, 66 & 68-in WA.1440/08. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.D.Murthy for RR 8, 16, 29 -in WA.1436/08Mr.E.J.Ayyappan for RR 72, 126, 208 -in WA.1437/08.The Following Respondents diedR4-in WA.1435/08RR11, 78, 88, 110, 179,214,221,249 and 251 -in WA.1438/08R30-in WA.1439/08R40-in WA.1440/08RR17 & 24-in WA.1441/08.For Respondents: Mr.

A.S.Chakravarthy for R-1 in all WAsMr. T.R.Rajagopalan, SC, for Mr. L.J.Krishnamurthy R2 in all WAsMr. D.Murthy for RR-8, 16 & 29in WA 1436/08Mr. E.J.Ayyappan for R7, 126, 208in W.A. No.1437/08COMMON JUDGMENTS.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.The writ petitions were preferred by the contesting respondentsfor direction on the appellant, ICICI Bank (hereinafter referred toas the 'Bank') to pay pension according to the Pension Scheme in viewof Rule 2 (ze), 2 (zea), 35 (i) and 35 (ii) of the Bank of MaduraEmployees Pension Regulations, 1995. The writ petition was opposedby the appellant-Bank, apart from merit, on the ground of itsmaintainability against private bank. On similar question, against the same Bank, an unreportedjudgment in W.A. No.2245/02 dated 4th Jan., 2008, was referred, butlearned single Judge having ignored the said judgment and havingallowed the writ petitions, the present appeals have been preferredby the Bank.

2. The contesting respondents/writ petitioners were employees inthe Bank of Madura (hereinafter referred to as 'Madura Bank') and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ served for more than twenty years in various branches of the MaduraBank. The said Madura Bank framed the Pension scheme in question on8th Sept., 1994. The respondent petitioners sought for voluntaryretirement and after their retirement, the Madura Bank merged withICICI Bank on 10th March, 2001. The erstwhile employees of MaduraBank, who opted for pension under the scheme were paid pension, butthe contesting respondents/writ petitioners having not opted forpension under the scheme, they were not provided with pension. Theywere provided with contributory provident fund.3. According to learned senior counsel for the Bank, apart fromthe question of maintainability of a writ petition against a privatebank, even on merit, the respondents/writ petitioners were notentitled for benefit of pension under the Bank of Madura EmployeesPension Regulation, 1994.

The following facts and regulations werebrought to the notice of the Court :-Regulation 2 (ze) defines 'VRS' as quoted hereunder :-

ze) 'V.R.S.' means Bank of Madura Employees'Voluntary Retirement Scheme enclosed to the circularCO.STF:39/94-95 dated July 21, 1994, or any otherspecific scheme that may be implemented in futurebringing such scheme under the definition of thisregulation. The employees who have completed 20 yearsof service in the bank and who have retired subsequentto the expiry of the scheme mentioned in the CircularCO:GM:CIR:2/93-94 dated May 20, 1993, and who wereextended the additional benefits in addition to thenormal retirement benefits shall be deemed andconsidered to have retired under V.R.S.

Section 3 stipulates application of regulation to certain typesof employees, relevant portion of which are quoted hereunder :-

3. Application :- These regulations shall apply toemployees who, -(1) (a) were in the service of the Bank on orafter the 1st day of January, 1986, but hadretired before the 1st day of November, 1993; and(b) exercise an option in writing within onehundred and twenty days from the notified date tobecome member of the Fund; and(c) refund within sixty days from the date ofcommunication from the Bank to this effect, theentire amount of the Bank's contribution to the Provident Fund including interest accrued thereontogether with a further simple interest at therate of six per cent per annum on the said amountfrom the date of settlement of the Provident Fundaccount till the date of refund of the aforesaid https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amount to the Bank; or(2) (a) have retired on or after the 1st day of November, 1993 but before the notified date; and(b) exercise an option in writing within onehundred and twenty days from the notified date tobecome member of the Fund; and(c) refund within sixty days from the date ofcommunication from the Bank to this effect, theentire amount of the Bank's contribution to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereontogether with a further simple interest at therate of six per cent per annum on the said amountfrom the date of settlement of the Provident FundAccount till the date of refund of the aforesaidamount to the Bank; or(3) (a) are in the service of the Bank beforethe notified date and continue to be in theservice of the Bank on or after the notifieddate; and(b) exercise an option in writing within onehundred and twenty days from the notified date tobecome member of the Fund; and(c) authorise the trust of the Provident Fundof the Bank to transfer the entire contributionof the Bank alongwith the interest accruedthereon to the credit of the fund constituted forthe purpose under regulation 5.

4.

So far as the question of giving option by the employees isconcerned, the Bank of Madura issued the first circular on 25th Jan.,1995, enclosing a copy of pension regulation giving opportunity toemployees covered under the regulation to exercise their option forpension by 25th July, 1995. In the said circular, it was made clearthat employees, who opted for pension shall not be entitled to the Bank's contribution to the provident fund w.e.f. 1st Nov., 1993 as the Bank's contribution to provident fund would be contribution to thepension fund. Thus, the proposed pension regulation meant that whilea provident fund optee would continue to receive matchingcontribution from the bank in his provident fund, a pension opteewould get only his contribution of his provident fund and the amountequal to the bank's contribution to provident fund would be creditedto the pension fund. Though a number of employees applied pursuantto the circular dated 25th Jan., 1995, admittedly, the contestingrespondents/writ petitioners did not choose to apply nor opted forpension scheme and, thereby, continued with the contributoryprovident fund scheme. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Subsequently, the 2nd option was given on 22nd July, 1995.

Timewas extended to opt for pension scheme upto 25th Oct., 1995.Meanwhile, the pension regulations underwent change, which wereincorporated in the scheme. Even thereafter, the contestingrespondents/writ petitioners did not choose to opt for the pensionscheme, but continued to remain under the contributory provident fundscheme. Third and final option was given by Madura Bank on 1st Feb.,1996. The Bank notified the pension regulations and issued circularhighlighting the modification to the original pension scheme andagain asked the employees, who are desirous, to submit applicationopting for pension scheme and time was granted upto 30th Feb., 1996.This time also, the contesting respondents/writ petitioners did notchoose to opt for pension. The Madura Bank merged with ICICI Bank on1st March, 2001. In the meantime, the contesting respondents/writpetitioners opted for VRS and were allowed to voluntarily retire fromservice.5.

In the aforesaid background, it was contended on behalf of theappellant-Bank that even on merit the respondents/writ petitionerswere not entitled for pension and learned senior counsel for thecontesting respondents did not dispute the facts and provisions oflaw as noticed above.6. In fact, similar question fell for consideration before aDivision Bench of this Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. - Vs –Lakshminarayanan - W.A. No.2245/02decided on 4th Jan., 2008. In thesaid case, the Division Bench noticed various decisions, includingthe decision in Binny Ltd. - Vs – Sadasivan 2005 (6) SCC 657, whereinthe Supreme Court observed that a writ of mandamus for remedy under Article 226 is pre-eminently a “public law remedy” and is notgenerally available as a remedy against private wrongs. However, the Supreme Court observed that it may be used to do justice when thereis a wrongful exercise of power or refusal to perform a statutoryduty.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Praga Tools Corporation – Vs– C.V. Imanual AIR 1969 SC 1306 :: 1969 (1) SCC 585 was also noticed, wherein the Supreme Court held that the condition precedent forissuance of mandamus is that there is one claiming it a legal rightto the performance of a legal duty by one against whom it is sought. An order of mandamus is, in form, a command directed to a person, corporation or an inferior tribunal requiring him or them to do aparticular thing therein specified, which appertains to his or theiroffice and is in the nature of public duty. In the said case, havingnoticed the company being not a statutory body and one incorporatedunder the Companies Act and there was neither a statutory nor apublic duty imposed on it by statute in respect of which enforcement https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ could be sought by means of a mandamus, the Supreme Court held thatno writ petition for mandamus could lie against the company.

The judgment of the Supreme Court in Federal Bank Ltd. - Vs –Sagar Thomas 2003 (10) SCC 733 was also noticed, wherein the SupremeCourt observed that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintained against a private bodydischarging public duty or positive obligation of public nature. Taking into consideration the aforesaid decisions, the VRS of Madura Bank, Madura Bank Pension Regulations and that the said MaduraBank merged with ICICI Bank, the Division Bench held that the writpetition claiming pension under the pension regulations against ICICIBank was not maintainable.7. The aforesaid judgment was brought to the notice of learnedsingle Judge, but single Judge simply ignored the Division Benchjudgment of this Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. (supra). Giving referenceto one or other judgment of Supreme Court that pension is not abounty and the authority is duty bound to pay the same, held that thewrit was maintainable and ordered to pay pension.

Learned singleJudge failed to notice the relevant fact that the Bank is not only aprivate body, but the regulation framed by Madura Bank is not astatutory regulation nor any public duty is cast on the Bank to paypension. Learned single Judge also failed to notice that there wasno positive public obligation for the Bank to pay pension to itsemployees. This apart, learned single Judge also failed to noticethat the contesting respondents/writ petitioners never applied forpension under the Madura Bank Pension Scheme before their retirement, within the time stipulated under different circulars, which wereissued thrice, and not disputed by them. It has already been noticed that learned single Judge, thoughnoticed the unreported judgment of this Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. (supra), indirectly refused to agree with the same and gave her ownfinding referring some other judgments. She took herself to sayindirectly that the previous decision of the Division Bench is notrequired to be followed.

Instead of following the usual procedure, in case of difference of opinion with the earlier decision, ofreferring the question to a larger Bench, the judicial decorum wasbreached in the present case.8. In Mahdeolal Kanodia - Vs – The Administrator General of WestBengal AIR 1960 SC 936, Supreme Court observed that quality wouldtotally disappear when Judges of coordinate jurisdiction in a HighCourt start overruling one another's decision.

The position wouldbe equally bad where a Judge sitting singly in the High Court is ofopinion that the previous decision of another single Judge on aquestion of law is wrong and gives effect to his view instead of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ referring the matter to a larger Bench. In such a case, lawyerswould not know how to advise their clients and/or courts subordinateto the High Court would find themselves in an embarrassing positionof having to choose between dissentient judgments of their own HighCourt

.In Shri Bhagwan & Anr. - Vs Ram Chand & Anr.

1965 (3) SCR 218 ::AIR 1965 SC 1976, Supreme Court noticed that single Judge consideredthe question as to whether the earlier decision of the Division Benchof the High Court needed to be reconsidered and revised. Therein the Court held as follows :-“Before we part with this appeal, however, we oughtto point out that it would have been appropriate ifthe learned single Judge had not taken upon himself toconsider the question as to whether the earlierdecisions of the Division Benches of the High Courtneeded to be reconsidered and revised. It is plainthat the said decisions had not been directly or evenby necessary implication overruled by any decision ofthis Court; indeed, the judgment delivered by thelearned single Judge shows that he was persuaded tore-examine the matter himself and in fact he hadsubstantially recorded his conclusion that the earlierdecisions were erroneous even before his attention wasdrawn to the decision of this Court in LaxmanPurshottam Pimputkar's case.

It is hardly necessaryto emphasise that considerations of judicial proprietyand decorum require that if a learned single Judgehearing a matter is inclined to take the view that theearlier decisions of the High Court, whether of aDivision Bench or of a single Judge, need to bereconsidered, he should not embark upon that enquirysitting as a single Judge, but should refer the matterto a Division Bench or, in a proper case, place therelevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable himto constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal withsuch matters and it is founded on healthy principlesof Judicial decorum and propriety. It is to beregretted that the learned single Judge departed fromthis traditional way in the present case and chose toexamine the question himself.” In Tribhovandas – Vs – Rathilal AIR 1968 SC 372, Supreme Courtobserved “it has been held time and again that a single Judge of HighCourt is ordinarily bound to accept as correct judgments of Courts ofcoordinate jurisdiction and of Division Benches and of the FullBenches of the High Court and of this Court.

The reason of the rule, which makes a precedent binding lies in the desire to secure https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ uniformity and certainty in law”.In Sundarjas Kanyalal - Vs – Collector, Thane 1989 (3) SCC 396,the Supreme Court observed as follows :-

18. It would be difficult for us to appreciate thejudgment of the High Court. One must remember thatpursuit of the law, however glamorous it is, has itsown limitation on the bench. In a multi-judge court, the judges are bound by precedents and procedure. Thecould use their discretion only when there is nodeclared principle to be found, no rule and noauthority. The judicial decorum and legal proprietydemand that where a learned Single Judge or a DivisionBench does not agree with the decision of a bench ofco-ordinate jurisdiction, the matter shall be referredto a larger bench. It is a subversion of judicialprocess not to follow this procedure.

In Ram Jankijee Deities - Vs – State of Bihar AIR 1999 SC 2131,the Supreme Court noticed that the issue, as a matter of fact, was nolonger res integra and open for further discussion, but learnedsingle Judge went on to decide the issue once again notwithstandingthe earlier finding as regards Idol's entitlement.

The Supreme Courtobserved that “when there was an existing order of Division Bench, judicial propriety demands that the learned single Judge dealing withthe matter ought to have referred to the same, moreso when a contraview is being expressed by learned Judge. It is a matter of judicialefficacy and propriety, though not a mandatory requirement of law. The Court while deciding the issue ought to look into the records asplaced before the Court. We are rather at pains to record here thatjudicial discipline ought to have persuaded the learned single Judgenot to dispose of the matter in the manner as has been done, therebeing no reference even of the earlier order.9. In this background, we are of the view that the decision inICICI Bank Ltd. (supra) being binding on learned single Judge hearinga writ petition, judicial discipline requires that she eitherfollowed it or referred the matter to a Larger Bench.

Sittingsingle, learned single Judge could not have taken a different view onthe ground that the decision was based on facts of one retiredemployee and in the present case number of retired employees areconcerned.10. It has already been mentioned, as pointed out above, even onfacts, the conclusion of learned single Judge is unsustainable, admittedly the contesting respondents/writ petitioners having notopted for pension under the Madura Bank Pension Regulation inspite ofchance being given thrice for their exercising option prior to theirretirement. For the reason aforesaid, we set aisde the impugned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order dated 26th Nov., 2008, passed by learned single Judge and allowthe writ appeals. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no orderas to costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarGLNTO1.

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR & EXECUTIVE OFFICER ICICI BANK LTD. CORPORATE OFFICE, ICICI TOWERS BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BUNDRA EAST, MUMBAI 400 051.2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE KARUMUTHU NILAYAM, NO.192, MOUNT ROAD CHENNAI – 6.3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE & COMPANY AFFAIRS (BANKING & INSURANCE) NO.235, JEEVANDEE BUILDINGS SANSAD MARG – 1 NEW DELHI 110 001.8 CC TO MR.R.SANKARANARAYANAN, ADVOCATE, SR.45276 TO 45283.12 CC TO MR.L.J.KRISHNAMOORTHY, ADVOCATE, SR.45169 TO 45176.1 CC TO MR.A.S.CHAKRAVARTHY, ADVOCATE, SR.44994. W.A. NOS. 1435 TO 1442 OF 2008 VSV(CO)KM, RVL 22.10.2009