Telangana High Court
A Susheel Kumar vs The Branch Manage Canara Bank on 7 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.850 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Ms. Chanchal, learned counsel representing
Sri P.N.Dayakar, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated
28.05.2025 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 27.11.2018 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
sufficient 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.13987 of 1999, the order of
dismissal was modified into compulsory retirement vide
judgment dated 17.03.2015. The appellant's gratuity
amount was paid after setting off the loans in terms of the
provisions of the Payment of Gratuity 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 under the pension scheme and could not have
been entertained. 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 India 1. He has also relied upon the decision of
2002 SCC OnLine Kar 514
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem
Singh 2.
5. The scheme under which 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 April, 2010. 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
from 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,
was totally oblivious of such a scheme and failed to meet
the cut-off date i.e., 22.08.2018, though the pension
(2008) 8 SCC 648
scheme was duly uploaded on the website and also on the
notice board of the Bank. Publication on the website is
sufficient notice to the public at large and, more so, the
employees of the Bank.
6. We have also taken note of the judgment rendered in
the case of K.G.Krishna Murthy (supra) relied upon by the
appellant. We are, however, not persuaded by the
reasonings recorded therein that even if the publication
was made in the newspaper, it did not fulfil the criteria of
proper service or actual service. The case of Tarsem Singh
(supra) stands on a different footing. It related to a case of
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 of
filing of the writ petition. In the said case, there 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 Bank's website 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 appeal is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
07.08.2025
vs
