Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank v. K. Baburajan

Read Judgment : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/nniy/

Citation: 2025 (4) KLR 105 : 2025 KER 27553
Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: Anil K. Narendran, J., Muralee Krishna S., J.
Case Number: W.A. No. 1898 of 2023; 2 April 2025
Parties: Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank v. K. Baburajan

Pension Scheme – Notice Sufficiency – Cut-Off Date – Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Compulsorily Retired Employee.

Syndicate Bank Circular Ext.P3 (13.07.2018) – Respondent’s Late Application (50 Days) Rejected – Single Judge Set Aside Rejection – Division Bench Allowed Appeal – Publication on Bank’s Website and Notice Boards Held Sufficient Notice – Administrative Cut-Off Date Upheld – No Legal Right to Condone Delay – Writ of Mandamus Inapplicable – Single Judge’s Direction to Reconsider Application Set Aside.

Writ Petition Dismissed.

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam v. Bachan Singh [AIR 2009 SC 2745] and Calcutta Port Trust v. Anadi Kumar Das [(2014) 3 SCC 617] Distinguished.

Counsel:

• Appellant: Adv. R.S. Kalkura
• Respondent: R. Bindu Sasthamangalam

Facts

K. Baburajan, the respondent, joined Syndicate Bank as Sub Staff on 2 May 1983 and was compulsorily retired on 29 April 2005. At the time of his retirement, he was ineligible for the bank’s Pension Scheme due to his compulsory retirement status. In 2016, the bank offered a second opportunity for employees in service on 29 September 1995 and retired thereafter to opt for the Pension Scheme, but Baburajan’s request was rejected. On 13 July 2018, the bank issued Circular Ext.P3, extending another pension option to compulsorily retired employees, with a submission deadline of 22 August 2018. Baburajan, unaware of the circular until 11 October 2018, submitted his application (Ext.P4) on 26 October 2018, delayed by 50 days, along with a request (Ext.P5) for condonation of delay. The bank rejected his application via Ext.P6 letter dated 12 April 2019, citing the missed deadline. Baburajan filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) No.14240 of 2019) under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash Ext.P6, declare his eligibility for the Pension Scheme, and compel the bank to consider his application. The Single Judge set aside Ext.P6 and directed the bank to reconsider Baburajan’s claim within two months, prompting the bank to file this writ appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the bank provided sufficient notice of the Pension Scheme Circular (Ext.P3) to retired employees, including the respondent.
2. Whether the respondent’s delay in submitting the pension application justified the bank’s rejection of his claim.
3. Whether the Single Judge erred in setting aside Ext.P6 and directing the bank to reconsider the respondent’s application.

Arguments

Appellants (Syndicate Bank)

• The bank published Ext.P3 Circular on notice boards at its branches, regional, and zonal offices, and on the Retirees Portal of its website, constituting sufficient notice.
• Individual notices to retirees were impractical due to their dispersed locations and outdated addresses.
• The cut-off date (22 August 2018) was essential for administrative efficiency, and the respondent’s late submission (26 October 2018) justified rejection.
• The Single Judge’s direction to reconsider the application lacked legal basis and contravened the scheme’s statutory deadlines.

Respondent (K. Baburajan)

• Retired in 2005, he could not reasonably be expected to monitor the bank’s website or notice boards for updates in 2018.
• The bank failed to provide personal or adequate public notice of Ext.P3, violating principles of fairness.
• Citing Supreme Court precedents (Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam v. Bachan Singh and Calcutta Port Trust v. Anadi Kumar Das), the respondent argued that the bank must prove actual intimation of the scheme, and mere website publication was insufficient.
• The delay of 50 days was unintentional, as he applied promptly upon learning of the circular.

Referred Cases and Their Importance

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam v. Bachan Singh [AIR 2009 SC 2745]
   • Reference in the Case: Cited by the respondent to argue that the bank could not deny pension benefits unless it proved that the Pension Scheme Circular (Ext.P3) was actually communicated to the respondent. The Supreme Court in this case held that denying pension benefits was unreasonable if the employer failed to show that instructions about the scheme were communicated to the retiree.
   • Importance: The Division Bench distinguished this case, noting that unlike Bachan Singh, where no evidence of communication was provided, Syndicate Bank proved sufficient notice through publication on its website’s Retirees Portal and notice boards. This distinction reinforced the court’s finding that the bank fulfilled its obligation to notify retirees, weakening the respondent’s claim of non-awareness.
2. Calcutta Port Trust v. Anadi Kumar Das (Capt.) [(2014) 3 SCC 617]
   • Reference in the Case: Cited by the respondent to support the argument that mere display of a pension scheme notice on the employer’s notice board (e.g., Head Office) was insufficient, and employers must adopt reasonable modes of communication, such as personal notices, newspaper ads, or website publication with prior retiree awareness. The Supreme Court outlined acceptable methods for notifying retirees, including website publication if retirees were informed of the designated site.
   • Importance: The Division Bench relied on this case to affirm that the bank’s publication of Ext.P3 on its Retirees Portal and notice boards was a valid mode of communication, as explicitly endorsed in Anadi Kumar Das. The court distinguished the case by noting that, unlike the Calcutta Port Trust, Syndicate Bank provided evidence of publication, satisfying the Supreme Court’s standards and negating the need for individual notices.
3. Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145]
   • Reference in the Case: Cited to clarify the scope of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that mandamus can only be issued to enforce a statutory duty when the officer fails to perform it, and its purpose is to ensure public authorities act within their jurisdiction.
   • Importance: This precedent supported the Division Bench’s refusal to uphold the Single Judge’s direction to reconsider the respondent’s application. The court found no statutory duty on the bank to accept late applications, and thus, no basis for issuing mandamus, reinforcing the principle that courts cannot direct actions contrary to law or statutory provisions.
4. Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [(2008) 2 SCC 280]
   • Reference in the Case: Cited to elaborate on the conditions for issuing a writ of mandamus, emphasizing that it requires a legal right in the petitioner and a corresponding statutory duty in the respondent. The Supreme Court referenced principles from The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris, stating that mandamus enforces a clear, ministerial duty when no other remedy exists.
   • Importance: This case bolstered the Division Bench’s reasoning that the respondent had no legal right to compel the bank to condone his delayed application, as the bank had no statutory obligation to accept submissions beyond the cut-off date. It underscored the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in the absence of a clear legal entitlement.
5. State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309]
   • Reference in the Case: Cited to reaffirm that a writ of mandamus can only be issued when the petitioner establishes a subsisting legal right and a corresponding legal duty imposed by the Constitution, statute, or rules. The Supreme Court clarified that mandamus cannot direct actions contrary to law.
   • Importance: This precedent was critical in the Division Bench’s decision to set aside the Single Judge’s judgment, as the respondent’s right to pension benefits was not subsisting due to his failure to meet the deadline. The case supported the court’s conclusion that the Single Judge’s direction lacked legal backing, as it effectively compelled the bank to act beyond the Pension Scheme’s statutory framework.

Summary of Importance

• Supreme Court Precedents on Notice (Bachan Singh and Anadi Kumar Das): These cases clarified the standards for notifying retirees about pension schemes. The Division Bench used Anadi Kumar Das to validate the bank’s website and notice board publications while distinguishing both cases to highlight the bank’s compliance with notice requirements.
• Supreme Court Precedents on Writ Jurisdiction (Bihar Eastern Gangetic, Oriental Bank, Harish Chandra): These cases established the strict conditions for issuing a writ of mandamus, emphasizing the need for a clear legal right and statutory duty. They were instrumental in the court’s finding that the Single Judge’s direction to reconsider the respondent’s application was legally untenable, as it contravened the Pension Scheme’s rules and lacked a basis in statutory obligation.

Judgment

The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s judgment dated 24 July 2023, and dismissed the writ petition. Key findings:

• Notice Sufficiency: The court held that publication of Ext.P3 on the bank’s website Retirees Portal and notice boards constituted sufficient notice, as per the Supreme Court’s guidance in Anadi Kumar Das, which lists website publication as a valid mode of communication. Unlike the cited precedents, the bank provided evidence of publication.
• Cut-Off Date: The court upheld the necessity of the 22 August 2018 deadline for administrative efficiency, noting that allowing late applications would disrupt scheme management. The respondent’s application, submitted 50 days late, was rightfully rejected.
• Writ Jurisdiction: Under Article 226, a writ of mandamus can only enforce a clear legal right and statutory duty. The respondent had no subsisting right to bypass the deadline, and the bank had no duty to accept late applications. The Single Judge’s direction to reconsider lacked legal backing and was based on a “singular circumstance” without merit-based findings.
• Distinguishing Precedents: In Bachan Singh and Anadi Kumar Das, the employers failed to prove any form of notice. Here, the bank’s website and notice board publications satisfied the notice requirement.

Ratio Decidendi

• Employers may communicate pension scheme updates to retirees through reasonable means, such as website portals, without requiring individual notices, especially when retirees are dispersed.
• Administrative cut-off dates for scheme applications are legally valid to ensure efficient management, and late submissions may be rejected absent a statutory right to condonation.
• Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot issue directions contrary to law or compel authorities to act beyond statutory provisions.

Obiter Dicta

The court acknowledged the respondent’s long gap (13 years) since retirement, reinforcing the impracticality of expecting banks to track and notify all retirees individually.

Conclusion

The High Court of Kerala reversed the Single Judge’s ruling, upholding the bank’s rejection of Baburajan’s late pension application due to sufficient notice via website and notice boards, the necessity of the cut-off date, and the lack of a legal basis for mandamus. The writ petition was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the respondent.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. What was the primary issue in the case of Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank v. K. Baburajan?
   a) Whether the respondent was entitled to a promotion
   b) Whether the bank provided sufficient notice of the Pension Scheme Circular (Ext.P3)
   c) Whether the respondent was wrongfully terminated
   d) Whether the bank violated labor laws
   Answer: b) Whether the bank provided sufficient notice of the Pension Scheme Circular (Ext.P3)
2. Under which provision was the writ petition filed by K. Baburajan in the High Court?
   a) Article 32 of the Constitution of India
   b) Article 226 of the Constitution of India
   c) Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958
   d) Article 136 of the Constitution of India
   Answer: b) Article 226 of the Constitution of India
3. Why was K. Baburajan’s pension application rejected by Syndicate Bank?
   a) He was not a bank employee
   b) His application was submitted 50 days after the deadline
   c) He was ineligible due to his cadre
   d) The bank lacked funds for the pension scheme
   Answer: b) His application was submitted 50 days after the deadline
4. What mode of communication did the bank use to notify retirees about the Pension Scheme Circular (Ext.P3)?
   a) Individual letters to all retirees
   b) Publication on the bank’s website and notice boards
   c) Newspaper advertisements
   d) Personal phone calls to retirees
   Answer: b) Publication on the bank’s website and notice boards
5. What was the Single Judge’s ruling in W.P.(C) No.14240 of 2019?
   a) Upheld the bank’s rejection of the pension application
   b) Set aside Ext.P6 and directed the bank to reconsider the respondent’s claim
   c) Declared the Pension Scheme unconstitutional
   d) Dismissed the writ petition without relief
   Answer: b) Set aside Ext.P6 and directed the bank to reconsider the respondent’s claim
6. Why did the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s judgment?
   a) The Single Judge lacked jurisdiction
   b) The respondent had a clear legal right to the pension
   c) The direction to reconsider lacked legal backing and contravened the scheme’s deadline
   d) The bank failed to provide any notice of the circular
   Answer: c) The direction to reconsider lacked legal backing and contravened the scheme’s deadline
7. Which Supreme Court case was distinguished by the Division Bench in this judgment?
   a) State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra
   b) Calcutta Port Trust v. Anadi Kumar Das
   c) Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain
   d) Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh
   Answer: b) Calcutta Port Trust v. Anadi Kumar Das
8. What did the court hold regarding the necessity of a cut-off date for pension applications?
   a) It is optional and can be ignored
   b) It is essential for administrative efficiency and scheme management
   c) It violates retirees’ rights
   d) It requires individual notices to be valid
   Answer: b) It is essential for administrative efficiency and scheme management
9. What principle governed the court’s refusal to issue a writ of mandamus?
   a) The bank had no statutory duty to accept late applications
   b) The respondent was not a retiree
   c) The court lacked jurisdiction under Article 226
   d) The Pension Scheme was unconstitutional
   Answer: a) The bank had no statutory duty to accept late applications
10. What was the final outcome of the writ appeal?
    a) The writ petition was allowed, and the respondent was granted pension benefits
    b) The Single Judge’s judgment was upheld
    c) The writ appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed
    d) The case was remanded to the Single Judge for fresh consideration
    Answer: c) The writ appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What was the background of K. Baburajan’s claim in this case?
   K. Baburajan, a former Sub Staff at Syndicate Bank, was compulsorily retired in 2005 and was initially ineligible for the bank’s Pension Scheme. In 2018, the bank issued Circular Ext.P3, allowing compulsorily retired employees to opt for the pension, but Baburajan’s application was rejected as it was submitted 50 days after the deadline of 22 August 2018.
2. Why did Baburajan claim he was unaware of the Pension Scheme Circular?
   Baburajan argued that he only learned of Ext.P3 on 11 October 2018, as the bank did not personally notify him or adequately publicize the circular. He claimed that, having retired in 2005, he could not be expected to monitor the bank’s website or notice boards in 2018.
3. How did the bank justify its rejection of Baburajan’s pension application?
   The bank rejected Baburajan’s application because it was submitted after the 22 August 2018 deadline. It argued that the circular was sufficiently publicized on its website’s Retirees Portal and notice boards, and individual notices were impractical due to retirees’ dispersed locations.
4. What was the Single Judge’s reasoning for setting aside the bank’s rejection?
   The Single Judge found that the bank failed to substantiate its claim of publicizing Ext.P3 and noted the possibility that Baburajan was unaware of the circular. Treating the case as a “singular circumstance,” the judge set aside the rejection (Ext.P6) and directed the bank to reconsider Baburajan’s application within two months.
5. Why did the Division Bench reverse the Single Judge’s decision?
   The Division Bench held that the bank’s publication of Ext.P3 on its website and notice boards was sufficient notice, as recognized in Calcutta Port Trust v. Anadi Kumar Das. The cut-off date was deemed essential for administrative efficiency, and Baburajan had no legal right to condone the delay. The Single Judge’s direction lacked legal basis, as a writ of mandamus cannot compel action contrary to statutory provisions.
6. How did the court address the Supreme Court precedents cited by the respondent?
   The court distinguished Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam v. Bachan Singh and Calcutta Port Trust v. Anadi Kumar Das, noting that in those cases, the employers failed to prove any form of notice. In this case, the bank’s website and notice board publications satisfied the notice requirement, aligning with the options outlined in Anadi Kumar Das.
7. What is the significance of the cut-off date in this case?
   The court emphasized that cut-off dates are critical for administrative efficiency, enabling institutions to manage schemes, process applications, and disburse benefits systematically. Allowing late applications would disrupt this process and encourage arbitrary submissions.
8. What principles governed the court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226?
   The court held that a writ of mandamus can only be issued to enforce a clear legal right and statutory duty. Since Baburajan had no right to bypass the deadline and the bank had no duty to accept late applications, the Single Judge’s direction was legally untenable.
9. What broader implications does this judgment have for pension schemes?
   The judgment reinforces that employers can use reasonable communication methods, such as website portals, to notify retirees of pension schemes. It also upholds the validity of administrative deadlines and limits judicial intervention in the absence of a clear legal right.
10. What was the final relief granted in the case?
    The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s judgment, and dismissed Baburajan’s writ petition, upholding the bank’s rejection of his late pension application. No relief was granted to Baburajan.