Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar Sawhney vs Central Bank Of India And Anr. on 19 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 19, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 549/2018
ASHOK KUMAR SAWHNEY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Umesh Singh, Advocate
Versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.S. Mathur, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
1. Vide order of 15th December, 2003, petitioner, who was Chief
General Manager, Zonal Office, New Delhi of respondent-Bank was
compulsory retired consequent upon a departmental inquiry against him.
Petitioner claims that he had made various Representations to the
authorities concerned from the year 2004 till 2006 to seek release of
pension and leave encashment but to no avail. Petitioner claims that after
deducting 1/3 of the pension, remaining 2/3 rd was released to him in
December, 2006.
2. It is the case of petitioner that his wife had suffered heart attack in
the year 2006 and was bed ridden and she needed constant assistance and
due to prolonged heart ailment, she died in May, 2009. From the year
2009 till November, 2017, petitioner remained silent and had not agitated
his claim about receiving lesser pension or about his leave encashment.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner draws the attention of this Court to
Representation of 23rd November, 2017 (Annexure P-10 colly) to submit
that petitioner was under the impression that he was being paid full
pension as per regulations and only in November, 2017, he had come to
know that he was receiving less pension when the question of revision of
pay was discussed with the union representatives. Learned counsel for
petitioner submits that the delay from the year 2009 till 2015 does not
cause any prejudice to the case of petitioner, for the reason that Indian
Bank's Association had for the first time permitted encashment of
privileged leave for compulsorily retired officers/ employees in May,
2015. Petitioner claims that in April, 2017, he had learnt about Indian
Bank's Association Resolution (Annexure P-7) permitting leave
encashment on compulsory retirement, even by way of penalty and
thereafter, on 5th April, 2017, petitioner had sought release of leave
encashment, which stands declined vide impugned Communication of 6 th
April, 2017 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that Indian Bank's
Association's Resolution (Annexure P-7) has been given prospective
effect from 30th April, 2015. Petitioner's Representation of 23rd
November, 2017 (Annexure P-10) against deduction of his 1/3rd pension
has been rejected vide order of 28th November, 2017 (Annexure P-11) by
relying upon Regulation 33 of Central Bank of India Employees' Pension
Regulations, 1995. Learned counsel for petitioner relies upon a Division
Bench's decision of this Court in Deepak Sapra Vs. Punjab National
Bank 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3724, wherein benefit of leave encashment
was granted to employees who had been compulsorily retired prior to the
year 2015. So, it is submitted that petitioner is entitled to benefit of leave
encashment and full pension because when the penalty of compulsory
retirement was imposed, it was not with a rider that petitioner's 1/3 rd
pension would be deducted. It is therefore submitted that petitioner is
entitled to full pension and benefit of leave encashment.
4. The opposition to this petition by learned counsel for respondent-
Bank is on the ground that this petition is hit by delay and laches. To
submit so, reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's decision in State of
Orissa & Anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436. Learned counsel
for respondent-Bank submits that by operation of Regulation 33 of
Central Bank of India Employees' Regulation, 1995, the authorities
concerned are required to deduct 1/3rd pension where compulsory
retirement is by way of penalty. It is submitted on behalf of respondents
that petitioner was not illiterate and was aware of his rights and so, on the
ground of delay and laches, this petition deserves to be outrightly
dismissed.
5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for petitioner submits that denial of full
pension is a subsisting cause and so, petitioner's claim for full pension is
not hit by delay and laches and delay in seeking leave encashment stands
duly explained by petitioner in his Representation of 23 rd November,
2017 (Annexure P-10 colly).
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned orders of 6th April, 2017
(Annexure P-4) and 28th November, 2017 (Annexure P-11), I find that so
far as deduction of 1/3rd pension is concerned, it is fully justified in view
of Regulation 33 of Central Bank of India Employees' Regulation, 1995.
As regards petitioner's claim for leave encashment is concerned, I find
that in view of narration in preceding paragraphs, the delay stands
boradly explained. Impugned order of 6th April, 2017 (Annexure P-4)
declining petitioner's claim for leave encashment requires to be set aside
for the reason that Indian Bank's Association may have resolved to grant
leave encashment on compulsory retirement in May, 2015 but a Division
Bench of this Court in Deepak Sapra (Supra) has already granted benefit
of leave encashment to an employee, who was compulsorily retired by
way of penalty, prior to the year 2015. It is pertinent to note that Special
Leave Petition against this Court's decision in Deepak Sapra (Supra) has
been dismissed. Meaning thereby, Division Bench decision of this Court
in Deepak Sapra (Supra) has attained finality. Applying the dictum of
Deepak Sapra (Supra) to the facts of instant case, impugned order 6 th
April, 2017 (Annexure P-4) is quashed with direction to respondent-Bank
to grant benefit of leave encashment to petitioner within twelve weeks,
failing which arrears of leave encashment shall carry interest @6% p.a.
from January, 2015 till the date of payment. In the facts and
circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to deny interest on
the arrears of leave encashment from the date of accrual. However, the
interest on the arrears would be payable only for a period of three years
prior to the institution of this petition.
7. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 19, 2018
r
