Dismissed

Keshaorao Chirkutrao Wasnik v. General Manager Bank of India and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2022WP/2449/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired Bank of India employee sought enforcement of pension scheme via writ petition arguing for extension of option submission deadline. Court dismissed writ as petitioner forfeited rights by missing the original deadline and no contractual right subsists to compel extension via Mandamus.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition dismissed. Bank not directed to extend time limit for pension option.

Keshaorao Chirkutrao Wasnik Vs General Manager Bank of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

906-aswp2449-2022

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2449 OF 2022

¶5

Keshaorao Chirkutrao Wasnik …Petitioner V/s. General Manager, Bank of India, Mumbai & Anr. …Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sanjay Kulkarni for the petitioner. Ms. Ranjana Todankar for the respondents.

¶7

CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶8

DATE: JUNE 24, 2022

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1. The petitioner was an employee of the Bank of India. He retired from the service of the Bank on 31^st December 2014. On account of terminal benefits, he received his own contribution of provident fund. While the petitioner was in service, a circular dated 24^th August 2010 was issued by the Bank to all its branches/offices in pursuance of an Agreement/Joint Note dated 27^th April 2010 executed by and between the Indian Banks’ Association and various Officers’ Association/Workmen Unions (United Forum of Bank Unions). All the existing employees were called upon to submit option during the period 1^st September 2010 to 30^th October 2010. Neither did the petitioner opt for pension nor for provident fund in terms of the Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995. Having not opted for pension, the petitioner

¶11

¶12

906-aswp2449-2022

¶13

forfeited whatever right he could have claimed under the circular.

¶14

2. Six (6) long years after his retirement, the petitioner by a letter dated 20^th January 2021 addressed to the General Manager, Bank of India requested that the pension scheme be made applicable to him on his retirement. Such request was spurned by the Bank by its letter dated 26^th February 2021 (Exhibit ‘D’), which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

¶15

3. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the request was spurned only on the ground that the petitioner did not submit his option between 1^st September 2010 to 30^th October 2010.

¶16

4. In this writ petition, there is no complaint of violation of any fundamental right or constitutional right of the petitioner. What the petitioner seeks is enforcement of the terms of the Agreement/Joint Note, in pursuance whereof the circular dated 24^th August 2010 saw the light of the day. A last opportunity was given to the existing employees by the Bank to exercise their option by 30^th October 2010. The time limit for submitting option having expired without the petitioner submitting his option, there can be no valid claim in the eye of law that the time limit ought to be extended for the petitioner; that too, at such a distance of time. The right, if any, flowing from the circular in regard to exercise of option is a contractual right. In the absence of a fresh agreement with the Bank and the unions, a contractual right even does not exist. The Bank cannot be directed to extend the time for

¶17

¶18

906-aswp2449-2022

¶19

submission of option by a Mandamus. If at all the Bank extends the time limit on its own in future and the petitioner is eligible to opt, he shall be at liberty to do so.

¶20

5. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The same stands dismissed. No costs.

¶21

6. This order shall, however, not preclude the petitioner to exercise his option in accordance with law, if in future the Bank permits exercise of such option.

¶22

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶23

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶24

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2022.06.27 11:20:16 +0530

¶25

Keshaorao Chirkutrao Wasnik v. General Manager Bank of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshaorao Chirkutrao Wasnik v. General Manager Bank of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hikal Limited Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp and Ors.

Sagar Lookouts vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 2 Others

Yogesh Vasudeorao Sawalakhe and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary General Administration Dept. and Ors.

Virendra Kumar Agrawal Vs Union of India through Its Under Secretary to Government of India(Revenue) and Anr.

Praveen Kumar Agarwal and 10 Ors. Vs Small Industries Development Bank of India and 3 Ors.

Dhananjay S/O Sharadchandra Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.