Bombay High Court
NARAYAN DATTATRAY ACHLERKAR AND ORSversusTHE MANAGING DIRECTOR BANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is not maintainable and is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, former employees of Bank of Maharashtra, filed a writ petition seeking the bank's service records, service book, and provident fund contribution details, along with directions to accept their payment and grant pension as per a circular dated 30‑03‑2024. They also requested a mandamus directing the bank to provide these documents and to process their contributions with interest. The respondents, the Managing Director of the bank, opposed the petition. The Court examined whether the petition was maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and noted that the petitioners could obtain the information through the Right to Information Act. It held that the petition was not maintainable because the appropriate remedy lay in filing an appeal under the RTI Act. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, leaving the petitioners free to pursue the RTI remedy.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition seeking service records and provident fund details is maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
- Whether the petitioners have an alternative remedy under the Right to Information Act
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- service records
- provident fund
- Right to Information Act
- maintainability
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
16-WP-7105-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7105 OF 2025
Narayan Dattatray Achlerkar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Managing Director Bank Of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Prashant R. Suryawanshi i/b Gajanan M. Savagave for Petitioners.
Mr. Ashutosh R. Gole for Respondents.
_______
AJIT CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
RAMESH
PATHRIKAR DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
Digitally signed by
AJIT RAMESH
PATHRIKAR
DATE: 07th SEPTEMBER 2026
Date: 2026.09.07
20:27:43 +0530
P.C.
1. In our opinion, considering the nature of the prayers, the petition itself is
not maintainable. We note the prayers as made in the petition, which read thus:
“a] Rule be issued and records and proceedings be called for.
b] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or a
writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or
order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and thereby
directing the Respondent to access the service record, Service Book and the
service documents relating to the Petitioners and thereby inform, provide
and/or hand over the duly counter signed, stamped, verified and
recommended copies to the Petitioners which may be necessary for
fulfilment of the requirement of the Circular dated 30.3.2024.
c] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or a
writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or
order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and thereby
permitting the Petitioners to deposit and direct the Respondents Bank to
accept the payment of the Provident Fund contribution alongwith the
interest accrued thereon and direct the Respondents to provide the details of
the account in which the said payments be made by the Petitioners and
further directing the Respondents to consider the application and the
payment made to as being made by the Petitioners within the time period /
granted in the above Circular and directing that the pension be granted to
the Petitioners from the date of application by the Petitioners in response to
Circular dated 30/03/2024 to the Petitioners accordingly.
d] Cost of this petition be provided for.
e] Any other order in the interest of justice and kindness be passed as
and when necessary.”
Page 1 of 2
Ajit
16-WP-7105-2025.DOC
2. If the Petitioners have made any application under the Right to Information
Act and if such application is not considered, the Petitioners have a remedy of
preferring an appeal before the forum as provided for under the provisions of the
Right to Information Act.
3. We accordingly dispose of this petition, keeping all contentions of the
Petitioners open to pursue such alternate remedy.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Ajit
Checking your session…