The Original Prayer and Moulding a Relief.

[Sanjay J]

Dear Members,

I recently received an email from a fellow member asking me to share my thoughts on two points regarding the ongoing M.C. Singla case. I believe the answers are of general interest to the group and have decided to share them here.

***   

Q 1:  What is the original prayer in the M.C. Singla case?

The "original prayer" is Updation of pension for retired bank employees at par with the RBI Pension Scheme and the Central Government Pension Scheme (CWP No. 6233/2008).

While the Original Prayer (2008) was a plea for "Parity" (treat us like RBI), the Current Arguments (2026) are a demand for "Statutory Compliance" (follow your own written Regulations).

Comparative Analysis: Original Prayer (2008) vs. Current Supreme Court Arguments (2026).

Feature	Original Prayer (2008)	Current SC Arguments (2026)
Core Demand	Parity with RBI/Central Govt. Based on general fairness.	Statutory Compliance. Enforcing the "Shall" clause in Regulation 35(1).
Legal Basis	Article 14 (Equality). Arguing discrimination compared to others.	Statutory Right. Proving the Bank is violating its own Gazette Notification.
Finance	"Deferred Wage" Theory. General argument that funds aren't an excuse.	"The Fund is Sufficient." Using concrete data (₹4.28L Cr corpus) to prove affordability.
Court Focus	Broad Principles. Looking at whether a "vested right" existed.	Forensic Math. Examining year-wise calculation charts for all retiree groups.

 

***

Q2:  Can the Supreme Court’s Judgment go beyond the Original Prayer?

The Supreme Court can go beyond the original prayer, but will typically remain within the broad scope of the subject matter in dispute. The governing touchstone is always "complete justice" — not the literal boundaries of the prayer clause.

While most lower courts must stick to exactly what is asked for in the "prayer clause," the Supreme Court has unique constitutional powers that allow it to go further. Here is the breakdown of why:

1. Article 142 (The "Complete Justice" Power): Under this Article, the Supreme Court can grant any relief it deems necessary to ensure a fair and just outcome. If the judges feel the "original prayer" is too narrow to fix the underlying problem, they can "mould the relief" to provide a better solution, as seen in leading cases like Textile Traders Syndicate v. CIT and State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas.
2. The "Safety Rails": Even though the Court can go beyond the prayer, it usually won't go "rogue." It generally stays within the bounds of the facts presented and the legal arguments heard from both sides to ensure "Natural Justice" (fairness to all parties).

Key Precedents in Pension and Service Matters:

• D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983): The Court expanded a pension scheme beyond its original "cut-off date" to ensure all pensioners were treated equally.
• Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India (2025): A landmark ruling confirming that pension is a Constitutional Right to property (Article 300A), not a charity.
• Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Ajit Mondal (2023): The Court used Article 142 to directly substitute a harsh penalty with retiral benefits to avoid further litigation for a retiree.
• Deb Narayan Shyam v. State of West Bengal (2005): Confirmed the Court's power to "mould equitable relief" even when the strict legal merits are complex. 

“Moulding a relief”: refers to the power of SC to grant a remedy that is different from what was specifically asked for in the original petition.  The Supreme Court under Article 142 can "mould" or "shape" a relief to ensure justice is done.

·         Why it's used: To avoid dismissing a case entirely just because the specific prayer is legally narrow or technically flawed.

·         Application: It allows the court to grant an alternative or partial remedy that addresses the core grievance in a practical way.

***

Hoping for a breakthrough as the Court moves toward reserving its final judgment!

Wish you all the very best.

 

[Niranjan Cn]

Sir,

A good attempt has been made to put forth your point of view.   Yes original case was for on lines of Government (as RBI revision had not taken place then).  The reasoning was 1993 minutes, settlement etc.  Those were sustainable grounds to some extent - can also be argued upon.  But unfortunately, 35(1) has been brought in and the case is argued based on 35(1) because 'updation' word is there.  35(1) details with fixation of pension to start with only and nothing to do with periodical revision.  Anyone reads 35(1) alongwith appendix 1 - it is clearly stated there.  35(1) is a slippery slope - better not to opt for that route.

All the four cases referred with are in connection with fixation of pension only and nothing to do with periodical updation.

WE petitioners prove that the banks are not paying as per Regulations - we can win the case very easily.  There are lot of interconnections/reference are drawn outside the Regulations.  It is a challenge to prove and argue on those lines.

It is too much expect the court to invoke article 142 in this case.

Niranjan

--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeLwnNQwsd1autT_KPrG4rO4VDb84-Nt0OseHnEGLfTAaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Thank you Sanjay for your information and best wishes.
We shall win the case and get favourable historic judgement beyond the normal expectations of deffendent advocates and others.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

--