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.” Ajit 16-WP-8983-2025.DOC 2. At the outset, we may observe that, by communicated dated 29th 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.) Ajit AJIT RAMESH PATHRIKAR Digitally signed by AJIT RAMESH PATHRIKAR Date: 2026.09.08 10:21:34 +0530