Kerala High Court
Sreenath Induchoodan vs Union Of India on 11 March, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:20810
WA NO. 466 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 466 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.2.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.5432 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SREENATH INDUCHOODAN
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.J.INDUCHOODAN, GENERAL SECRETARY, UNION BANK
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION(KERALA STATE)
REG.NO.TV19457 C/O.REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK
OF INDIA, STATUE, TRIVANDRUM-695 001, RESIDING
AT INDEEVARAM A-37, MARUTHOORKADAVU, KARAMANA
P.O. TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695002
2 DEEPAK PAROTH
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.LATE DEVADAS PAROTH, SR MANAGER, UNION BANK
OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR-680 003, RESIDING AT PAROTH HOUSE,
ANJOOR POST, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR, PIN -
680523.
3 SUNNY KURIAN
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.KURIAN T.M, SR MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA,
REGIONAL OFFICE , M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 035,
RESIDING AT THEVARKATTIL HOUSE, CHELAD P.O.
2025:KER:20810
WA NO. 466 OF 2025
2
MILLUMPADY, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
686681.
BY ADVS.
KALEESWARAM RAJ
APARNA NARAYAN MENON
CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
THULASI K. RAJ
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL
SERVICES, 6A 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING,
SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, NORTH BLOCK, NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110001
3 THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
AYALAR BHAVAN, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI, PIN -
600034
4 UNION BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR & CEO, 239,
CENTRAL OFFICE, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN
POINT, MUMBAI, PIN - 400021
5 MANAGING DIRECTOR & CEO
UNION BANK OF INDIA, 239, CENTRAL OFFICE, VIDHAN
BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, PIN - 400021
6 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
TAXATION CELL, FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS, UNION BANK
OF INDIA, 239, CENTRAL OFFICE, VIDHAN BHAVAN
MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, PIN - 400021
2025:KER:20810
WA NO. 466 OF 2025
3
7 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR)
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, UNION BANK OF INDIA,
239, CENTRAL OFFICE, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN
POINT, MUMBAI, PIN - 400021
8 REGIONAL MANAGER
UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE,
THIRUVANTHAPURAM MG ROAD, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695001
9 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL DIRECTOR, RESERVE BANK
OF INDIA, NO.6507, BAKERY JCT ROAD, NANDAVANAM,
PALAYALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033.
OTHER PRESENT:
SC for R4 TO R8: ADV SADCHITH P KURUP,
SC FOR R2 AND R3:- SRI JOSE JOSEPH AND
SRI.CYRIAC TOM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:20810
WA NO. 466 OF 2025
4
JUDGMENT
Easwaran S., J.
This intra-court appeal arises from the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 18.02.2025 in WP(C) No.5432/2025. The
appellants approached the writ court challenging Exts.P2 and P7
circulars issued by the Union Bank of India and also seeking a
direction for consideration of representations, Exts.P9 to P12.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal
are as follows:
Taxability of the perquisites enjoyed by the employees in the form of
fringe benefits under Section 17(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
read with Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was questioned
before the Supreme Court and in the decision reported in All India
Bank Officers' Confederation v. The Regional Manager, Central bank
of India and Others [(2024) 9 SCC 664], the Supreme Court repelled
the challenge. After the decision of the Supreme Court, the employer
of the appellants, Union Bank of India, issued Exts.P2 and P7
circulars wherein it was provided that the employees will have to
bear the liability of tax on concessional rate of interest on loans as
the fringe benefits. Pointing out that the aforesaid policy of the
employer would act to the detriment of the employees, the Officers'
2025:KER:20810
WA NO. 466 OF 2025
Union as well as the individual Officers preferred representations
before the Managing Director of the Bank as evident from Exts.P9 to
P12. The prayer sought in those representations was to revoke the
circulars issued by the Union Bank of India and to stop the deduction
of tax at source with respect to the additional perquisite value
attributed to the concessional loans and issue separate orders,
accordingly. Alleging non-consideration of the aforesaid
representations, the appellants approached the writ court seeking to
challenge Exts.P2 and P7 circulars and alternatively seeking a writ
of mandamus directing the respondents to consider Exts.P9 to P12
representations and pass orders accordingly.
3. The learned Single Judge who considered the writ
petition repelled the challenge to Exts.P2 and P7 circulars on the
ground that the circulars were issued pursuant to the decision of the
Supreme Court in All India Bank Officers' Confederation (supra).
Insofar as the prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing
the respondents to consider Exts.P9 to P12 representations, the
learned Single Judge was of the view that the appellants/petitioners
have no legal right and the respondents do not have any
corresponding legal obligation to consider the representations and,
therefore, declined to exercise the discretion and, accordingly,
dismissed the writ petition.
2025:KER:20810
WA NO. 466 OF 2025
4. Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants/petitioners, Sri.Cyriac Tom and Sri.Jose
Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, and
Sri.Sadchith P. Kurup, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondents 4 to 8.
5. On consideration of the rival submissions raised across
the bar, we find that the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified in
not entertaining the writ petition. The question is as to whether the
tax liability has to be absorbed by the employer or has to be borne
out by the employees themselves. This, according to us, is purely a
policy decision of the Union Bank of India, which is reflected in
Exts.P2 and P7 circulars. However, we find that the Officers' Union
as well as individual Officers of the Bank have filed separate
representations requesting the Bank to revisit the said policy.
6. The question before us now is as to whether we should
issue a direction to the Bank for consideration of the representations,
Exts.P9 to P12. Going by the principles governing issuance of a writ
of mandamus, we find that the learned Single Judge was perfectly
justified in refusing to issue the writ of mandamus directing the Bank
to consider the aforesaid representations. However, inasmuch as the
learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted
before us that the Bank is not averse to considering the
2025:KER:20810
WA NO. 466 OF 2025
representations and taking a decision in respect of the grievance
voiced by the appellants, we find that based on the said submission,
a direction can be issued to the competent among the respondents
(Bank) to consider the representations, Exts.P9 to P12, within a
period of two weeks from today and communicate the decision to the
appellants. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the matter, and it will be purely within the domain
of the competent among the respondents (Bank) to take a decision
in accordance with law.
This appeal is disposed as above. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.,
JUDGE
jg
2025:KER:20810
WA NO. 466 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE HRMD CIRCULAR NO.
814/2025 DATED 20.02.2025 ISSUED BY
THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER.
