Delhi High Court
A.K. Tandon vs Central Bank Of India & Anr. on 6 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 06, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 359/2016
A.K. TANDON ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Umesh Singh, Advocate
Versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.O.P. Gaggar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
1. Consequent upon infliction of penalty of compulsory retirement
upon petitioner, respondents vide impugned order of 16 th April, 2014
(Annexure- PP), have forfeited the gratuity payable to petitioner. Vide
another order of 13th October, 2015 (Annexure P-6), petitioner's leave
encashment also stands forfeited.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for respondents submits that the
remedy available to petitioner against forfeiture of gratuity is to approach
the Controlling Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and
to submit so, reliance is placed upon decision of a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Ms. Neeru Abrol Vs. Chairman & Managing Director
National Fertilizers Limited & Anr 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6335.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no disputed
question of law in respect of gratuity payable and so, this writ petition can
be entertained qua denial of gratuity.
4. Since there is an alternate and efficacious remedy available to
petitioner, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain petitioner's
prayer for grant of gratuity. Accordingly, petitioner is relegated to
Controlling Authority to avail of efficacious and alternate remedy under
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for grant of gratuity.
5. So far as petitioner's prayer for leave encashment is concerned, I
find that a Division Bench of this Court in Deepak Sapra Vs. Punjab
National Bank, 2013 SCC Online 3724 has categorically held as under:-
"8. Thus, in respect of all categories of retirees, the
first proviso states that such employees would be eligible to
payment of leave encashment benefits. Advisedly, the
regulation which was framed after prior consultation with
and approval of the Central Government made no
distinction between one class of retirees and another. Indeed
there is no dispute about the fact that the cessation of
service as a result of retirement can be on the occurrence of
three contingencies-attainment of superannuation; option by
the employee to voluntarily retire from the service, and the
third, retirement of an employee upon imposition of a
penalty or exercise by the employer upon imposition of a
penalty or exercise by the employer of an option to
compulsorily retire the employee on this attaining a certain
age or having served for a certain number of years, in
public interest. The first proviso makes no distinction
between one class of retirees and another. In other words,
each one of them, in terms of Regulation 38 of the 1979
Regulations is entitled to leave encashment benefit. In the
case of those imposed with penalty of compulsory
retirement, there is no dispute that pension - as applicable
and other terminal benefits are given. In these
circumstances, to single-out one class of retirees, i.e those
imposed with compulsory retirement and deny them the
benefit of leave encashment would be contrary to plain
intent of Regulation 38 of the 1979 Regulations. This Court
is clear that the first part of the learned Single Judge's
reasoning that he preferred and relied upon the bank's
circular of 18.01.2001 is clearly erroneous. That circular
flies in the face of the first proviso to Regulation 38 of 1979
Regulations and could not have added words as it sought to,
in the present instance. Another reason which persuades us
to hold as we do, i.e to say that compulsory retirees would
be entitled to leave encashment benefits is that singling-out
such class of employees for denial for one specific type of
retirement benefit is also arbitrary and furthers no
rationale, having regard to the express terms of Regulation
38 of the 1979 Regulations."
6. Learned counsel for respondents relies upon an order of Supreme
Court of 28th August, 2015 in Special Leave Petition 28315/2011, Canara
Bank & Ors. Vs. K.L. Vig, to submit that a Special Leave Petition against
decision in Deepak Sapra (Supra) was also a part of batch of Special
Leave Petitions, where Supreme Court had not interfered with the
directions issued in Deepak Sapra (Supra) for grant of leave encashment
and had left the question of law open.
7. Be that as it may. This Court finds that in view of decision in
Deepak Sapra (Supra), which has been followed by another Division
Bench of this Court in R.K.Jain Vs. Punjab National Bank 2014(3) SCT
297 (Delhi), impugned order denying benefit of leave encashment to
petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, impugned order of 13th
October, 2015 (Annexure P-6) is set aside with direction to respondents to
make the payment of leave encashment to petitioner within twelve weeks.
8. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 06, 2017
r
