IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court

Law Does Not Compel the Impossible : High Court Invokes Doctrine of Impossibility in Pension Eligibility Case

25 September 2024 4:25 PM

By: sayum


On September 24, 2024, the Orissa High Court, in the case of Prasanta Kumar Pani vs. Indian Bank, ruled in favor of a petitioner seeking inclusion in the pension fund under the Allahabad Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. The petitioner, who was removed from service in 1999 but later reinstated after a successful legal challenge, had been denied the option to join the pension scheme, citing a missed deadline. The Court quashed the bank's decision, emphasizing that the delay was due to circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control.

Prasanta Kumar Pani, a former employee of Allahabad Bank, was removed from service in 1999 following disciplinary proceedings. His removal was later quashed by the Orissa High Court in 2015, with the punishment deemed illegal due to violations of natural justice. Pani was deemed to have superannuated in 2010. However, when he sought to join the pension scheme under the Allahabad Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, the bank refused his request, stating that he had missed the 2010 deadline for opting into the pension scheme.

The key legal issue centered on whether the petitioner was entitled to pension benefits despite not exercising the option to join the pension scheme during the stipulated timeframe. The petitioner argued that his removal from service, which was under legal dispute from 1999 to 2016, made it impossible for him to meet the 60-day deadline to opt for the pension scheme set by a 2010 circular.

The Court observed that the doctrine of impossibility—"lex non cogit ad impossibilia"—was applicable in this case. Justice Murahari Sri Raman noted that the petitioner could not have been expected to exercise his option for pension while he was fighting a legal battle against his removal from service. The court cited several precedents, including Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International, emphasizing that the law should not compel actions that are impossible to perform.

The Court quashed the bank’s decision dated 28.09.2020, which had refused the petitioner’s request to join the pension scheme. It held that the bank’s refusal was "illogical and irrational," particularly given that the petitioner was removed from service and later reinstated by court orders. The Court stated that the petitioner should have been allowed to exercise the pension option once the punishment was quashed, and the bank's failure to accommodate this was unjust.

Further, the Court highlighted that the bank had extended similar pension benefits to other categories of employees, including those compulsorily retired. The Court directed the bank to reconsider the petitioner’s claim and extend the benefits of the Allahabad Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, within three months.

The Court's ruling reaffirmed the principle that an individual should not be penalized for being unable to perform a required action due to circumstances beyond their control. By invoking the doctrine of impossibility, the Orissa High Court ensured that the petitioner, Prasanta Kumar Pani, would receive his rightful pension benefits despite the technical barriers placed by the bank.

Date of Decision: 24/09/2024

Prasanta Kumar Pani vs. Indian Bank & Another

Similar News