A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Bank of India & Ors. v. Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 3829 of 2025 (Supreme Court, 18 March 2025) addresses whether a High Court Division Bench was justified in setting aside a Single Judge’s dismissal of a writ petition by a retired employee who sought belated acceptance of an option to join the Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995.

The Bank issued Circular No.104/645 on 24.08.2010 inviting eligible retired employees to opt between 1.9.2010 and 30.10.2010 pursuant to a settlement dated 27.4.2010 between IBA and unions. The respondent retired in 2000, was abroad when the circular issued, returned to India on 1.9.2010, underwent a short surgery in early October, and only on 19.3.2011 (four months after the deadline) submitted forms seeking to join the pension scheme. The Single Judge dismissed the challenge, finding the Bank’s refusal reasonable; the Division Bench allowed the appeal on compassionate grounds.

The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge’s order, holding that

(i) wide publicity was shown to have been given and no cogent proof was produced that communication to retirees was deficient;

(ii) beneficial policies prescribing time-limits cannot be extended indefinitely at a litigant’s convenience;

(iii) absence of a legally protected right or judicially enforceable claim precluded mandamus; 

(iv) high courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 will not rescue the tardy, indolent or lethargic.

The judgment relies on principles in Calcutta Port Trust v. Anadi Kumar Das and Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana, and emphasises certainty in collective settlements and the need to respect prescribed windows for exercising options.

Keywords: Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995; exercise of option; last date for option; mandamus; Article 226.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arises from an IBA–union settlement dated 27.04.2010 which extended the Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995 to specified retired employees, and from a Bank circular dated 24.08.2010 establishing a finite window (1.9.2010–30.10.2010) for eligible retirees to exercise option. The respondent, a long-serving ex-employee relieved on voluntary retirement in 2000, was eligible under the terms but failed to lodge option forms within the prescribed window.

He was abroad around the date of issue, claims a short hospitalization in early October, and only sought to opt on 19.3.2011. The Bank rejected the belated option, prompting a writ petition under Article 226; the Single Judge dismissed that petition while a Division Bench allowed the appeal on compassionate grounds, treating the scheme as beneficial and condoning the delay.

The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the Division Bench’s interference with the Single Judge’s dismissal was legally sustainable. The Court concentrated on three interrelated background themes:

(a) sufficiency of communication/publicity to retirees,

(b) legal consequences of failing to act within a prescribed option period in a collective settlement context,

(c) the scope and limits of equitable considerations in writ jurisdiction where no legally enforceable right is shown.

The Supreme Court examined documentary material including the Bank’s counter affidavit showing publicity, the chronology of the retiree’s travel and illness, the settlement framework, and precedent emphasising the employer’s duty to communicate and the high court’s restraint in rescue missions for those who neglected statutory or contractual windows.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The first respondent served Bank of India for about 25 years and retired voluntarily on 30.12.2000. On 24.08.2010 BoI issued Circular No.104/645 inviting options from retirees eligible under the 27.04.2010 IBA–unions settlement to opt into the 1995 Pension Scheme; the window was 1.9.2010–30.10.2010. The respondent had gone to the United States in March 2010 and returned to India on 1.9.2010, within the option window.

He stated that he was unaware of the circular and subsequently underwent a surgery between 3–7 October 2010. He claims to have learned of the scheme only later from former colleagues, and on 19.3.2011 (four months after the deadline) he submitted a representation and required forms asking to be enrolled. The Bank refused to accept the belated option as the deadline had expired. The respondent filed a writ petition (originally WP No.29659 of 2011) seeking mandamus to compel the Bank to accept his option; a Single Judge dismissed the petition observing the expiry and reasonableness of Bank’s refusal.

The respondent carried the matter before a Division Bench (WA No.188 of 2024) which allowed the appeal on the ground that the policy was beneficial and delay could be condoned because the respondent had a surgery. The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court against the Division Bench order. The factual record before the Supreme Court included the Bank’s affidavit showing wide publicity through national/local newspapers and branch notifications and the respondent’s admissions about travel and dates of return and surgery.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a High Court Division Bench was justified in interfering with a Single Judge’s dismissal of a writ petition challenging denial of a belated option to join a pension scheme where a prescribed option window had lapsed?
ii. Whether a beneficiary acquires a legally protected right enforceable by mandamus by failing to exercise an option within a clearly notified deadline under a collective settlement?
iii. What is the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in granting relief based on sympathy or compassionate grounds where procedural time-limits are binding on parties to a settlement?
iv. Whether the Bank discharged its duty to communicate the availability of the option to all eligible retirees by wide publicity and branch-level dissemination?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The Bank (appellants) contended that the circular provided a clear and finite window (1.9.2010–30.10.2010) to exercise the option and it had given wide publicity through national/local newspapers and branches. The Bank asserted there was no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in declining belated submissions and that acceptance of such would unsettle the settlement reached between IBA and unions. The appellants argued that the respondent had returned to India well within the window and failed to make reasonable efforts to acquaint himself with available benefits; brief hospitalization for four days did not justify condonation of a four-month delay. The Bank relied on settled precepts that courts should not extend writ relief where there is no legally enforceable right and that compassion cannot override contractual/settlement timelines.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The respondent argued the pension scheme was beneficial and therefore the Bank ought to have considered a belated application. He relied on his surgery in early October as justification for delay and said he only learned of the scheme later through ex-colleagues. The respondent urged that equitable treatment and the welfare character of pension benefits warranted condonation of the lapse. He pressed the Division Bench to apply remedial discretion under Article 226 to secure the beneficial relief and to avoid harsh denial where the purpose of the scheme was to benefit retirees.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the Bank’s appeal and set aside the Division Bench order, restoring the Single Judge’s dismissal. The Court analysed documentary material and precedent. It first accepted BoI’s factual showing of wide publicity via newspapers and branches and observed that the respondent failed to rebut this effectiveness of communication. The Court emphasised that a beneficial policy which prescribes a time-limit does not permit indefinite extension to suit an individual’s convenience.

It underlined the legal distinction between benefit and right: beneficial schemes invite voluntary exercise of option but, where the window is prescribed and publicity given, failure to act creates no legally enforceable right to compel belated acceptance. The Court relied on Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana to recall that mandamus lies only where a legally protected right is denied by a duty-holder; without such a right, courts cannot manufacture relief.

Applying Calcutta Port Trust v. Anadi Kumar Das, the Court noted employers must use reasonable modes to inform retirees, but where reasonable modes were used and no rebuttal was shown, courts should not intervene. The Court rejected compassion as a ground for mandamus, warning that acceptance of belated options would create chaos, confusion and public inconvenience and would unsettle collective settlements. Thus, in absence of arbitrariness or unreasonableness by BoI, judicial interference was unwarranted. The Court found the Division Bench erred in substituting sympathy for legal principle; the Single Judge’s conclusions were held to be legally sound.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The controlling ratio is that where a beneficial scheme prescribes a clear and reasonably publicised time-limit for exercise of option, the failure of an eligible person to exercise the option within that window does not give rise to a legally enforceable right for later enforcement by mandamus; courts exercising Article 226 must not grant relief to the tardy or indolent merely on grounds of compassion if the employer has adopted reasonable modes of communication and the decision-making process is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The decision affirms that beneficial character of a policy does not obliterate prescribed timelines and that absence of a legally protected right is fatal to writ jurisdiction claims.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed obiter that employers should adopt multiple modes of communication (newspapers, branch notices, association-circulation, websites) as noted in Calcutta Port Trust, to reach retirees; but where such steps are demonstrably taken, courts should respect the finality of settlements. The Court also commented on practical administration: belated acceptance could unsettle actuarial and administrative planning underlying pension schemes and collective bargains. Finally, the Court stressed that short medical events (four days’ hospitalization) warrant careful scrutiny and do not ipso facto justify four months’ delay absent corroborative steps taken by the applicant.

c. GUIDELINES 

i. When an employer extends a beneficial scheme by settlement and prescribes a time-window, ensure wide publicity — newspapers, branch notices, associations and designated websites — and retain documentary proof of publication.
ii. Retirees must act diligently within notified timelines; mere claims of ignorance or short hospitalisation must be supported by credible evidence to justify condonation.
iii. High Courts should exercise restraint under Article 226 and avoid granting relief that would alter the balance of collective settlements on grounds of sympathy or charity.
iv. Employers refusing belated options should record reasons and ensure non-arbitrariness to withstand judicial scrutiny; transparency in communication reduces litigation.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision reinforces predictability in administrative action concerning pension and collective settlement timelines. It balances two competing concerns: equitable welfare orientation of pension schemes and the rule of law requiring finality in settlement-driven option windows. Practically, the judgment signals to employers that clear and demonstrable dissemination of circulars will insulate their refusal of belated claims from judicial interference; to retirees, it underscores the imperative of vigilance and timely action. Legally, the ruling reiterates the threshold for mandamus a judicially enforceable legal right and curtails expansion of remedial writ relief through compassion where no protected legal interest exists.

The Court’s reliance on Calcutta Port Trust is instructive: while employers owe a duty to reach retirees, proof of reasonable modes suffices; and the Court’s caution about creating administrative chaos by accepting belated options is sound policy. For practitioners, the case provides useful arguments both for defending refusals of belated claims (show publicity, non-arbitrariness) and for attacking them (prove deficient communication, exceptional disability backed by contemporaneous evidence). Overall, the judgment is a measured reaffirmation of legal limits to equitable interference in employment–pension contexts.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Calcutta Port Trust v. Anadi Kumar Das (Captain) and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 617.
ii. Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana, (1977) 1 SCC 486.
iii. Bank of India & Ors. v. Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 3829 of 2025, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 120 : 2025 INSC 373.

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Constitution of India — Article 226 (writ jurisdiction).