Venukumar R v. The Assistant General Manager

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29.04.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P(MD).No.12820 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)No.9625 of 2026 R.Venukumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Assistant General Manager PP.G.Department, State Bank of India Chennai LHO No.16, College Road, Nungambakkam Chennai - 600 006 2.The Regional Manager State Bank of India 24, G.K.N. Building North Car Street Nagercoil - 629001 Kanyakumari District

3. The Branch Manager State Bank of India Karungal, Kanyakumari District.

... Respondents 1/8

PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceeding in RM-RBOV/HR/2025-26/3069 dated 20.08.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to fix eligible pension as per the rule governing petitioner's service and grant the same with arrears and interest thereon within the time as stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Antony Arulraj For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceeding in RM-RBO-V/HR/2025-26/3069 dated 20.08.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to fix eligible pension as per the rule governing petitioner's service and grant the same with arrears and interest thereon. 2/8

2. The petitioner herein, who was imposed with the punishment of discharge from service as early as on 18.11.1999 made a claim for payment of pension and the same was negatived by the respondent bank through proceedings dated 08.04.2015. Thereafter, petitioner has not taken any steps against the said proceedings dated 08.04.2015 and the same has attained finality.

3. In the said proceedings dated 08.04.2015, the respondents have stated that the petitioner is not eligible for drawal of Pension. However, the said proceedings dated 08.04.2015 also makes a reference to a previous communication dated 31.10.2014. Neither the said proceeding dated 31.10.2014 nor the proceeding dated 08.04.2015 were challenged by the petitioner. However, once again the petitioner appears to have made a claim by submitting a representation dated 24.07.2025 requesting for payment of pension. The said request was negatived by the respondent bank, through the impugned proceedings intimating the petitioner that he has not completed the requisite minimum service of 20 3/8

years and he has only completed 16 years of service. It is aggrieved by the said proceeding dated 20th August, 2025, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was discharged from service only in the year 1999 and he was initially appointed in the year 1979 and therefore, he has completed 20 years of service. However, from the perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 18th May 1995, by which time the petitioner has completed only about 16 years of service.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the period of suspension also to be counted as service cannot be accepted unless and until the said period of suspension was regularised as service by passing appropriate orders by the competent authority. Admittedly, in the instant case, no such orders have been passed as on date.

4/8

6. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has completed 20 years of service, so as to be eligible for payment of pension cannot be accepted.

7. Be that as it may, the claim of the petitioner was negatived as early as on 30.10.2014 and 08.04.2015 and the said orders have not been put to challenge and they became final. Even in the present writ petition, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said proceedings dated 31.10.2014 and 08.04.2025, but has chosen to challenge the proceedings dated 20.08.2025 which is in the nature of communication of the information about the earlier orders passed by the respondent bank.

8. In the circumstances, even if the said orders dated 31.10.2014 and 08.04.2015 are put to challenge the same would suffers from the delay and latches.

5/8

9. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

29.04.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No rm 6/8

To 1.The Assistant General Manager PP.G.Department, State Bank of India Chennai LHO No.16, College Road, Nungambakkam Chennai - 600 006 2.The Regional Manager State Bank of India 24, G.K.N. Building North Car Street Nagercoil - 629001 Kanyakumari District

3. The Branch Manager State Bank of India Karungal, Kanyakumari District.

7/8

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR , J.

RM 29.04.2026 8/8