Madras High Court
WP/8409/2022 of G.Swaminathan Vs Reserve Bank o India (RBi) on 27 October 2026
WP No. 8409 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 8409 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA010434352022}
G.Swaminathan
S/o. Dr. R. Govindarajulu
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Reserve Bank of India (RBI),
South Regional Head office,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai 01
2. City Union Bank Limited
Rep by senior General Manager (HR & BD)
Administrative Office “Narayana”
No. 24-B Gandhi Nagar,
Kumbakonam, Thanjour District 612 001
3. City Union Bank Limited
Deputy General Manager (Disciplinary Authority)
Administrative office “Narayana”
No. 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam,
Thanjour District 612 001
4. Karthik
S/o. A. Sriram Trainee Clerk (EMP No. 6191), City Union Bank Limited Thirumanugal Branch , Kumbakonam Thanjour Districtv
..Respondent(s)
Prayer :- This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 30.04.2021 and settle entire retirement cum terminal benefits amount.
WP No. 8409 of 2022
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. B.Gandhi
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Saiprasad,
for M/s. Sai Raaj Associates,
for R2 & R3
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed Seeking to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 30.04.2021.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 2 and 3 have not setted the terminal benefits. In this regard, the petitioner has sent a representation on 30.04.2021. Despite the pendency of such representation for a quite long time, the respondents 2 and 3 have not passed orders.
3. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 invites the attention of this Court to paragraph 33 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Federal Bank Ltd /vs/ Sagar Thomas and others reported in Manu/SC/0769/2003. Paragraph 33 of the said judgment is extracted herein below:- “33. Merely because the Reserve Bank of India lays the banking policy in the interest of the banking system or in the
WP No. 8409 of 2022 interest of monetary stability or sound economic growth having due regard to the interests of the depositors etc. as provided under Section 5(c)(a) of the Banking Regulation Act does not mean that the private companies carrying on the business of or commercial activity of banking, discharge any public function or public duty. These are all regulatory measures applicable to those carrying on commercial activity in banking and these companies are to act according to these provisions failing which certain consequences follow as indicated in the Act itself. Provision regarding acquisition of a banking company by the Government, it may be pointed out that any private property can be acquired by the Government in public interest. It is now judicially accepted norm that private interest has to give way to the public interest. If a private property is acquired in public interest it does not mean that the party whose property is acquired is performing or discharging any function or duty of public character though it would be so for acquiring interest
4. According to the above ratio, merely because the Reserve bank of India lays down banking policy in the interest of the banking system, it will not give any right to the parties to bring a scheduled bank within the definition of the State.
5. Therefore, as contended by the learned counsel, this Court is of the firm opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable.
WP No. 8409 of 2022
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
7. Independent of the above decision on merits, the learned Counsel with all fairness would submit that the respondents would consider the petitioner’s representation dated 30.04.2021 within a reasonable time.
8. In view of the above fair submission, this Court directs the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated30.04.2021 on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking Neutral Citation: Yes MRP
WP No. 8409 of 2022 To
1. Reserve Bank o India (RBI) South Regional Head office Rajaji Salai, Chennai 01
2. City Union Bank Limited Rep by senior General Manager (HR and BD Administrative office Narayana No. 24-B Gandhi Nagar Kumbakonam Thanjour District 612 001
3. City Union Bank Limited Deputy General Manager (Disciplinary Authority) Administrative office Narayana No. 24-BGandhi Nagar Kumbakonam Thanjour District 612 001 Mayiladudurai Taluk and District
WP No. 8409 of 2022 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. MRP WP No. 8409 of 2022 27-10-2026