Madras High Court
S.Rengan vs Union Of India on 2 September, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD) No.10572 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD) No.10572 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.8052 of 2017
S.Rengan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.Union of India
rep.by Secretary to Government
Ministry of Finance
Department of Financial Services
Banking Division, Jeevan Deep Building
Parliament Street
New Delhi-110 001
2.Indian Banks Association
World Trade Centre Complex
Centre-1, 6th Floor, Cuffee Parade
Mumbai-400 005
rep.by its Chairman
3.The Chief Executive Officer /
Managing Director
The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.,
HRD Department
Administrative Office
Kathaparai, Karur-639 006
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10572 of 2017
4.The Deputy General Manager
The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.,
HRD Department
Administrative Office, Karur ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the
impugned proceedings in LVB/102-09.05/103/2011-2012 dated 24.05.2011
and LVB/102-09.05/100/775/2016-17 dated 19.10.2016, on the file of the
respondents 3 & 4 – Bank and quash the same and direct the respondents 3 &
4 to permit the petitioner to join the pension scheme, as per the Joint Note of
the second respondent dated 27.04.2010 and to pay the pension to the
petitioner retrospectively from 31.10.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.G.Vasudevan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Saravanan for R1
Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.,
Standing Counsel for R3 & R4
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned letters
dated 24.05.2011 and 19.10.2016, issued by the respondents 3 and 4 – Bank,
rejecting the petitioner's request to opt for pension, on the ground that his
request was not made within the notified date.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. As per the notification of the respondent – Bank, the petitioner
ought to have submitted his request for payment of pension on or before
19.04.2011. But, since the petitioner had submitted his request belatedly on
30.04.2011, his request has been rejected under the impugned letters issued
by the respondent – Bank.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 3 and 4 –
Bank.
4. At the outset, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents 3 & 4 – Bank would submit that this writ petition is not
maintainable, since the respondent – Bank is not a Public Sector Bank and it
is a Private Bank. In support of his contention, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents 3 & 4 – Bank relied upon the following
authorities:
(i) Federal Bank Ltd., vs. Sagar Thomas and
others, reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733;
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ii) ICICI Bank Limited, Corporate Office vs.
Lakshminarayanan, reported in 2009 (1) CTC
22;
(iii) Unreported decision in W.P.(MD) No.20715 of
2015, order dated 24.02.2022 in
M.M.Thangavel vs. Union of India and others;
and
(iv) Unreported decision in W.P.Nos.7779 to 7781,
9207 to 9209, 12122 to 12126 of 2017, order
dated 14.03.2024 in R.V.Natarajan vs. Union
of India and others.
5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 & 4
– Bank drew the attention of this Court to the relevant paragraphs in the
aforesaid decisions and would submit that since the respondent – Bank is a
Private Bank, this writ petition is not maintainable. One of the paragraphs in
the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of ICICI Bank Limited,
cited supra, which deals with the very same issue, is extracted hereunder:
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“17. In the present case also, as the appellant-
Bank of Madura Ltd., is a Private Company, carrying on
private banking business and not carrying on any
statutory or public duty, no "Writ Petition" under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against
the appellant-Bank of Madura Ltd. Merely because the
Bank has made provisions to grant "pension" on VRS,
under the relevant Pension Scheme, the same cannot be
a ground to hold that the Bank is performing a public
duty or public function. Hence, the first question is
answered in the negative against the respondent-Writ
Petitioner and in favour of the appellant-Bank of
Madura Ltd. (now ICICI Bank Ltd.)”
6. In all the aforesaid decisions, which dealt with the very same
issue, consistently it has been held that writ petition is not maintainable
pertaining to the issue, which has been raised in this writ petition, as the
respondent – Bank was a Private Bank in all the aforesaid decisions.
Admittedly, the respondent – Bank, in this writ petition, is also a Private
Bank.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In view of the same, due to the settled law, the present writ
petition is not maintainable and the only remedy available to the petitioner to
redress his grievance, if any, is only before the Civil Court. Having, by
mistake, approached this Court, the petitioner should not be left remediless
and the time spent before this Court during the pendency of this writ petition
will have to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the
purpose of enabling him to approach the Civil Court seeking redressal of the
very same grievance.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is not maintainable
and therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to
the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, if he so desires and the period spent
by him before this Court in this writ petition shall be excluded for the purpose
of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
krk
and
02.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
