WP/29434/2024 of PL SATHAPPAN Vs UNION OF INDIA on 12 October 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Bank to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner with effect from 31.08.2018, the date of his superannuation, as he had submitted the application along with the necessary particulars, as required by the respondent Bank, on 04.07.2018, and to disburse the arrears of pension together with interest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner joined Madura Bank in the year 1981. The learned counsel would further submit that, during the petitioner's service in Madura Bank, the erstwhile Bank introduced a pension scheme for its employees. In the meanwhile, in the year 2001, Madura Bank was amalgamated with the 3rd respondent Bank. At the time of amalgamation, the benefits extended to the employees of the erstwhile Bank were also taken into consideration. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits extended to the employees of Madura Bank. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service in May 2013. Immediately thereafter, the 3rd respondent sent a pension proposal by e-mail dated 29.06.2018, and the petitioner also submitted the requisite pension proposal. However, till date, the respondents have not sanctioned the petitioner's pension. Hence, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

3. The said contentions were strongly opposed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd and 4th respondents, who would submit that the 3rd and 4th respondents do not fall within the definition of the “State” and that this Court, by orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.2245 of 2002 and W.A.No.3735 of 2025, has held that such writ petitions are not maintainable.

4. The said contention was reiterated by the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and who, in support of the same, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., reported in [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1147.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported in (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 623, in V. Kannappan and Others v. Union of India, contending that, since the 1st and 2nd respondents regulate the functions of the 3rd and 4th respondents, it is their duty to ascertain whether the latter have acted in accordance with the conditions of amalgamation. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd and 4th respondents would submit that a similar issue had arisen before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench held that the mere existence of supervisory control by the Reserve Bank of India would not, by itself, bring a scheduled bank within the definition of the State. It was further held that even a claim relating to pension against a scheduled bank cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The relevant portion of the judgment in ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Lakshminaryanan in W.A.No.2245 of 2002 dated 04.01.2008, is extracted below: “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.)

18. So far as the second question relating to the eligibility of the respondent -writ petitioner to claim “Pension” under the Pension Regulations, is concerned, we also accept the submission as made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Bank.””

7. Similarly, in K. Karthikesan v. ICICI Bank Limited and Another, bearing Neutral citation No.2026:MHC:3140, in paragraph No.12, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court observed as follows: “12. Hence in the light of the discussions and reliance placed on the judgements rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has arrived at a conclusion that mere regulation of Banks by statutory bodies like RBI does not make private sector banks pass the ‘public function- test.””

8. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in S. Shobha (cited supra), observed in paragraph No.9 as follows: “9. We may sum up thus:

(1) For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence Governmental.

(2) A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State Government;

(ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State;

(vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.

(3) Although a non-banking finance company like the Muthoot Finance Ltd. with which we are concerned is duty bound to follow and abide by the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India for smooth conduct of its affairs in carrying on its business, yet those are of regulatory measures to keep a check and provide guideline and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the company.

(4) A private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled bank cannot be termed as a company carrying on any public function or public duty.

(5) Normally, mandamus is issued to a public body or authority to compel it to perform some public duty cast upon it by some statute or statutory rule. In exceptional cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a public duty is cast upon such private body by a statute or statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its public duty.

(6) Merely because a statue or a rule having the force of a statute requires a company or some other body to do a particular thing, it does not possess the attribute of a statutory body.

(7) If a private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any rights is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced. The duty cast on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial but, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action.

(8) According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol.30, p.682, “a public authority is a body not necessarily a county council, municipal corporation or other local authority which has public statutory duties to perform, and which perform the duties and carries out its transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private profit”. There cannot be any general definition of public authority or public action. The facts of each case decide the point.”

9. From the above ratio, though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Reserve Bank of India has the authority to safeguard the rights of employees, in view of the judgments relied upon by the respondents, this Court is of the firm view that the claim made against the 3rd and 4th respondents with regard to pension cannot be enforced through writ proceedings, as the 3rd and 4th respondents cannot be construed as the “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court finds that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

10. However, at this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to submit a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent ventilating the petitioner's grievance. If the petitioner wishes to submit such a representation, he is at liberty to do so. Upon receipt of such representation, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation.

11. In the result, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.

12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No JRS

To

1. The Secretary, Union Of India Department Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare Janpath Bhawan, B Wing, 8th Floor New Delhi 110 001

2. The General Manager , Reserve Bank Of India Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001

3. The Managing Director And Executive Officer, Icici Bank Limited Corporate Office, Icici Towers Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur

4. The Icici Banking Corproation Limited Employees Superannuation Fund, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur

C.KUMARAPPAN J. JRS WP No. 29434 of 2024 12-10-2026