Dismissed

A Susheel Kumar v. The Branch Manage Canara Bank

Telangana HC7 Aug 2025WA/850/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a writ petition where an ex-offcial claimed pension benefits. The court held the claim was barred as it fell beyond the scheme's cut-off date, noting sufficient notice was issued via website and notice board.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed without costs; miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

A Susheel Kumar Vs The Branch Manage… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR^SINGH AND ' , THE HoNoURABLE sRt JUSTICE G.M. MoHtuDDtN

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 850 OF 2025

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent^preferred against^{the Orderdated} 28.O5.2025 in W.P. No. 14422 ot 2019 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

A Susheel Kumar, S/o Late Sri A S Veera Swamy Ex Officer^{Syndicate Bank} Varni Branch Nizamabad Dist Telangana State and^{Rl/o H No 12-11-1645} Ambernagar Jamai Osmania Warasiguda Secunderabad^{500 061}

¶10

...APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN W.P.

¶11

AND

¶12

'l . The Branch lt/anage Canara Bank, Erstwhile Syndicate Bank No 80 Varnt Branch Nizamabad 503 201 Telangana State

¶13

2- The General l\4anager Canara Bank, Erstwhile Syndicate^{Bank Organization} and lvlethods Division Head Office Bangaluru

¶14

The General Manager Personnel Canara Bank,^{ErstwhileSyndicate Bank} Staff Welfare Division Officers Wing Head Office Bangaluru

¶15

The Asst General [Vlanager HR Canara Bank, Erstwhile Syndicate^{Bank Staff} Welfare Division Officers Wing Head Office Bangaluru

¶16

The Chief lt/anager HR Canara Bank, Erstwhile^{Syndicate Bank Staff Welfare} Division Officers Wing Head Office Manipal 576 104

¶17

The Dy General Manager Canara Bank, Erstwhile^{Syndicate BankZonal} Office No 62915 HMWS and SB Building West^{Block ll floor Khairthabad} HYDERABAD 5OO OO4

¶18

RR 1 to 6 C T is amended as^perCO dt^{1010312023inlAOll2O23}

¶19

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

i l

IANO:1O F 2025

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstancer; stated in the affidavit file<, in support of the petition, the High Court may be plee sed to suspend the order passed in W.p.No 14422 of 2019, Dated.28.05.2025 during the pendency of the arppeal

¶24

counsel forthe Appe[ant: Ms. GHANCHAL REp sRr. p N DAYAKAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI DISHIT BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the frrllowing: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE THE^{CHIEF JUSTIC E SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH}

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JU^{STICEG.M.MOHII'DDIN}

¶28

WRIT APPEAL No.85O of2025

¶29

JUDGMENT:

¶30

Heard Ms. Chanchal, learned^{counselrepresenting} Sri P.N.Dayakar,^{learnedcounsel for the appellart}

¶31

This writ appeai is directed^{againstthe order dated} 28.O5.2025^{passedin W.P'No.14422 of 2019, wherebythe} learned writ court^{has dismissedthe writ petition filed by} the appellant.

¶32

In the writ petition, the^{appellant madethe claim for} pension under the^{pensionscheme vide circular dated} 13.07.2018, which clearly^{providedthat the optionto join} pension scheme can^{be exercised on or before22.08.2018'} The appellant's application^{addressed on 27 - 1 1.20 18 was} not processed, as it^{was madebeyondtime} ' The respondents Bank^{(hereinafterreferred 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}

¶33

¶34

sufflcient 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.t3987 of 1999, the order of dismissal was; modified into compulsory retirement vide judgment dal.ed 17.03.201S. The appellant,s gratuity amount \1ras F,aid after setting off the loans in terms of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuitv 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 unde:r the pension scheme and could not have been entertairred. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal.

¶35

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 Indiat. He has also relied upon the decision of

¶36

'^{2002 SCC Ont_ine} Kar 514

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union^{of India v. Tarsem} Singhz.

¶41

The scheme under '"vhich 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 havebeen} retired from service of the Bank on or^{before the date of the} settlement i.e.,27th Aprll,2OlO. 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 lrom 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.O8.2O18, though the pension

t (zoos) s scc 6+s

..i

\ --- -..,'r 'L I

scheme was duly uploaded on the website ar-ld also on the notice board of the Bank. Publication on the website is sufficient notice to the public at largc and, more so, the employees of the Bank.

¶48

We hane also taken note of the judgment rendered in the case of K.G.Krishna Murthy (supra) relied upon b5r thr: appellant. \Ve are, however, not persuaded by thr: reasonings rccorded therein that even il thc publication u,as made in the newspaper, it did not fulfil the criteria ol proper serrrice or actual scrvice. The case of Tarsem SingtL (supra) stands on a different footing. It related ro a case ol 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 o1' filing of the writ petition. In the said case, rhere 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

¶49

¶50

applicable to the present case. In those circumstances, the learned writ court rightly held that once the circular had been notified in the Bark's^q,ebsite 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

¶51

Accordingly, the instant appeai is dismissed. However, there sha-ll be no order as to costs.

¶52

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶53

stand closed.

¶54

//TRUE GOPY//

¶55

SD/.N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER

¶56

To,

¶57

One CC to SRl.^{P. N. DAYAKAR, Advocate[OPUC]} i. o;; cc io sni.^{otsHlrBHATTACHARJEE'Advocate [oPUC]} 3. Two CD CoPies BM LS

l I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:07108t2025

JUDGMENT

riL l.; ,r. t. 7 '. :'
(
:.) 2 0 0[I 296
/./'.
- riF^\l C,, i{- ....,
-i,'

¶63

WA.No.850 of 2025

¶64

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

4
$
q

A Susheel Kumar v. The Branch Manage Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Susheel Kumar v. The Branch Manage Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chief General Manager (Commercial) Vs Abbineni Narayana Rao

Abbineni Narayana Rao Vs The Chief General Manager (Commercial)

M/s Adarsh Global Traders and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Renewable Energy Systems Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central tax

Gugulothu Pandu Vs The State of Telangana

Gugulothu Manjula Vs The State of Telangana