Bombay High Court
MANOHAR DAMODAR THAKUR DESAIversusTHE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is dismissed as it is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches.
Summary
The petitioner, a former employee of Bank of Maharashtra, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the bank to consider his 2010 application for the joint Pension Scheme and to accept his provident fund contributions with interest. The bank had earlier communicated that he was ineligible because he did not fall within the two specified categories of eligible employees. The petition was filed in April 2025, more than 15 years after the original application, without any explanation for the delay. The Court observed the unexplained, extensive delay and applied the doctrine of delay and laches, refusing to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was rejected without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the petition is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches despite the petitioner’s claim for pension benefits.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the joint Pension Scheme under the bank’s circular dated 28.8.2018.
Subjects
- Article 226
- Writ of mandamus
- Pension scheme
- Delay
- Laches
- Bank of Maharashtra
- Provident fund
Judgment
16-WP-8983-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8983 OF 2025
Manohar Damodar Thakur Desai ...Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy General Manager & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Prashant R. Suryawanshi i/b Gajanan M. Savagave for Petitioner.
Mr. Ashutosh R. Gole for Respondents.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 07th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the
following substantive reliefs:
“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 No. 1 OR Bank of Maharashtra to consider the
application dated 27.8.2010 as a application for the joint Pension Scheme
and to allow the said application and to grant the pension benefits to the
Petitioner on the basis of the Circular dated 28.8.2018 issued by the
Respondent No. 2.
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 Petitioner to deposit and direct the Respondents Bank to
accept the payment of the Provident Fund contribution along with the
interest accrued thereon and direct the Respondents to provide the details of
the account in which the said payments be made by the Petitioner and
further directing the Respondents to consider the application and the
payment made to as being made by the Petitioner within the time period /
granted in the above Circular and directing that the pension, along with the
applicable interest from the dated of application dated 27.8.2010 made by
the Petitioner with the Respondent No. 1 and be granted to the Petitioner
accordingly.”
Page 1 of 2
Ajit
16-WP-8983-2025.DOC
2. At the outset, we may observe that, by communicated dated 29 th September
2010 at Exhibit-C, the Petitioner was informed that he was not entitled to join the
pension scheme as the Petitioner did not fall within the two categories as set out in
the said communication, namely: (i) employees who were in service of the Bank
prior to 29th September 1995 and retired on superannuation after that date and
prior to the date of Settlement/Joint Note and (ii), employees who retired from the
service on or after 29th September 1995 under VRS 2000 scheme after completing
minimum service of 15 years.
3. Despite the aforesaid communication, it appears that the Petitioner did not
take any steps to assert his legal rights, if any. The present petition has been filed on
30th April 2025. We have perused the memo of the petition. There is no
explanation, much less any justification, for the gross delay of more than 15 years in
approaching this Court.
4. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary
and equitable jurisdiction, considering that the petition is barred by the doctrine of
delay and laches.
5. The petition is accordingly rejected. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Digitally
signed by
AJIT
AJIT RAMESH
RAMESH PATHRIKAR
PATHRIKAR Date:
2026.09.08
10:21:34
+0530
Page 2 of 2
Ajit
Checking your session…