Gujarat High Court
Dineshkumar Mohanlal Katpara vs Union Bank Of India on 25 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12495 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
DINESHKUMAR MOHANLAL KATPARA
Versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR RAJESH P MANKAD(2637) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NAGESH C SOOD(1928) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Nagesh
Sood waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the
respondents. With the consent of the learned advocates for
the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rajesh P. Mankad for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Nagesh Sood for the
respondents at length.
3. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16,
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following
reliefs :
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
"(A) The Hon'ble Court will be pleased to admit and allow the
present petition and further be pleased to hold and declare that the
action of the Respondent Bank of not paying the difference of
pension from the date of superannuation (CRS), 31-5-2011 till
27.6.2014 (date of conversion of dismissal into compulsory
retirement), Encashment of 240 days leave payable as per Rules on
superannuation (CRS) and also not granting and not paying the
difference of subsistence allowance and full pay for the period of
suspension since final punishment imposed on petitioner is only
compulsory retirement from the date of superannuation is against
the norms and rules applicable to the Respondent Bank and
therefore be pleased to quash and set aside the said action/orders
with further direction to the Respondent Bank and its official to
make payment of the difference of pension from the date of
superannuation (CRS), 31-5-2011 till 27.6.2014 (date of conversion
of dismissal into compulsory retirement), Encashment of 240 days
Leave payable as per Rules on superannuation (CRS) and also pay
the difference of subsistence allowance and full pay for the period
of suspension since final punishment imposed on petitioner is only
compulsory retirement from the date of superannuation along with
interest at commercial rates with further direction to the
Respondent Bank to comply with the same and file Compliance
Report before this Hon'ble Court in time bound schedule.
(B) By way of ad-interim and or interim relief, Hon'ble Court will
be pleased to direct the Respondent Bank to deposit the amount
payable on account of difference of pension from the date of
superannuation (CRS), 31-5-2011 till 27.6.2014 (date of conversion
of dismissal into compulsory retirement), Encashment of 240 days
Leave payable as per Rules on superannuation (CRS) and also the
difference of subsistence allowance and full pay for the period of
suspension with the Registry of this Hon'ble Court with further
direction to the Registry to make the payment of the same to the
petitioner on appropriate terms and or direction for investment till
the pendency and final disposal of the present petition.
(C) Hon'ble Court be pleased to award the cost of present
petition."
SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE :
4. The petitioner came to be appointed as Clerk-cum-
Cashier on 10/10/1978 in respondent bank and confirmed in
service on 01/04/1979. Later on, he was promoted and
transferred to different places from 1984 till August, 2010.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
Lastly, when petitioner was working as Senior Manager in the
Credit Department, Regional Office, Ahmedabad of
respondent bank, he was suspended by the respondent bank
on 28/09/2010 alleging misconduct committed by him when
acted as Branch Manager, Dr. J.M. Road Branch, Ahmedabad.
4.1 Petitioner was served with the charge-sheet on
04/05/2011 and during the pendency of departmental inquiry
initiated by respondent Bank against petitioner, as having
reached the age of superannuation on 31/05/2011, respondent
Bank vide its communication letter dated 10/05/2011 whereby
observed that as per Regulation No.20(3)(iii) of Union Bank of
India Officers' Service Regulation, 1979 (hereinafter referred
to as "Regulation, 1979"), petitioner will cease to be in
service of respondent bank w.e.f. 31/05/2011, but disciplinary
proceedings will continue as if he is in service until the
proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect
thereof.
4.2 It is made clear in the aforesaid letter dated 10/05/2011
that petitioner will not be entitled to receive any retirement
benefit until disciplinary proceedings are completed and
specific order is passed thereof, except his own contribution
to Compulsory Provident Fund.
4.3 It appears that on completion of aforesaid disciplinary
proceedings, having been found guilty of committing
misconduct for which petitioner was subjected to inquiry,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal from
services of respondent bank with immediate effect by its order
dated 09/02/2012. Thereafter, petitioner unsuccessfully
challenged aforesaid order of dismissal before appellate
authority, who vide its order dated 07/12/2012 confirmed the
said order of penalty imposed by disciplinary authority.
4.4 As a last hope, petitioner approached the reviewing
authority of respondent bank by filing Memorial/Review, and
after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
reviewing authority of respondent Bank vide its order dated
27/06/2014 modified the said order of punishment whereby,
order of major penalty of dismissal from service of Bank with
immediate effect imposed upon the petitioner stands
substituted to compulsory retirement from the services of
respondent bank. It may be noted here that reviewing
authority has not observed any specific date from which
petitioner would compulsorily retired from his service.
4.5 Having received that order of compulsory retirement,
petitioner requested the respondent bank to release benefit of
leave encashment amount vide its representation dated
09/06/2015 which was turned down by respondent bank, on
24/06/2015. It further appears that petitioner went on with
repeated representations asking for aforesaid benefit which
was denied by respondent bank vide its different
communications wherein it referred communication of Indian
Bank Association (hereinafter referred to as "IBA") dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
11/05/2015 whereby, petitioner told that he is not eligible to
receive leave encashment as order of punishment, id est,
compulsory retirement passed in his case prior to 30/04/2015.
4.6 After a long period of time, a legal notice came to be
issued by petitioner through his lawyer on 09/04/2019
whereby called upon respondent bank to release benefit of
leave encashment and pensionary benefits from 31/05/2011
till 27/06/2014 and also sought for pay difference of
subsistence allowance and full pay for the period of
suspension as, according to petitioner, he was subjected to
only compulsory retirement, thus, entitle to receive aforesaid
benefits. The aforesaid legal notice having replied by
respondent bank on 07/05/2019, whereby in clear terms
denied aforesaid benefits, resultantly, present petition
preferred on 19/07/2019.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :
5. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad for the petitioner would
respectfully submit that when petitioner is ordered to be
compulsorily retired from service by competent authority of
respondent Bank then, as per Regulation 1979, petitioner is
entitled to receive leave encashment benefit. It is submitted
that as per Regulation No.38 of said regulation, when
petitioner compulsorily retired from service, in that
eventuality as well, he would entitle to receive benefit of leave
encashment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Mankad would respectfully submit
that respondent bank has wrongly denied statutory benefit of
leave encashment to petitioner, citing irrelevant IBA
communication and inapplicable provisions of the said
Regulation, thereby violated fundamental rights of petitioner
to receive retiral benefits. It is respectfully submitted that
respondent Bank was not correct when denied benefit of leave
encashment by placing reliance upon communication received
from IBA dated 11/05/2015.
5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Mankad would respectfully submit
that when statutory regulation framed by respondent bank
entitle petitioner to receive leave encashment on his
retirement, such statutory benefit could not have been denied
by respondent bank by placing reliance upon communication
of IBA. It is submitted that IBA might have agreed that
30/04/2015 onwards, if any officer will be compulsorily
retired, entitle to receive leave encashment, but it would not
mean that any statutory rules entitle employee to receive
benefit under it, can be denied.
5.3 Learned advocate Mr. Mankad would respectfully further
submit that when any right accrued from regulation which is
statutorily framed by respondent bank, no executive
instruction or any communication of IBA would supersede
such statutory regulation and as such, not binding to
petitioner. It is respectfully submitted that there is no
justification on the part of respondent bank not to grant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
benefit of leave encashment to the petitioner and as such,
there is no reasonable nexus sought to be achieved by taking
cut-off date of 30/04/2015 when otherwise respondent bank is
going to grant such benefit to other similarly situated persons
who are compulsorily retired from 30/04/2015 onwards.
5.4 Learned advocate Mr. Mankad would respectfully submit
that when respondent having placed reliance upon its
regulation i.e. 20(3)(iii) of Regulation, 1979, whereby
continued the service of petitioner till final conclusion of
disciplinary inquiry initiated against him, when order of
dismissal inflicted upon petitioner, on that day, service of
petitioner would stand terminated. It is respectfully submitted
that when reviewing authority modified the order of
punishment imposed by disciplinary authority confirmed by
appellate authority, whereby penalty converted from dismissal
to compulsory retirement then, in absence of any date of such
compulsory retirement mentioned in order of reviewing
authority, as a corollary, at least date of dismissal requires to
be considered as date of compulsory retirement as till that
date, petitioner deemed to have continued in service.
5.5 Learned advocate Mr. Mankad would respectfully submit
that considering the aforesaid regulation so cited by
respondent bank vide its letter dated 10/05/2011 whereby,
though petitioner ceased to be in service of bank from the
date of his superannuation i.e. 31/05/2011 but due to legal
fiction continued in service till conclusion of inquiry, thus,
date of compulsory retirement would requires to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
considered a date of order of dismissal i.e. 09/02/2012,when
inquiry concluded. It is submitted that respondent bank has
given the effect of granting pension from date of order of
compulsory retirement passed by the reviewing authority, i.e.
27/06/2014, which is unjust, improper, arbitrary and requires
to be quashed and set aside. It is respectfully submitted that
petitioner is entitled to receive pensionary benefit w.e.f.
09/02/2012 if not from date of his superannuation i.e.
31/05/2011, instead of 27/06/2014.
5.6 Learned advocate Mr. Mankad would respectfully state
that petitioner having allowed to be compulsorily retired from
service, entitle to receive subsistence allowance as order of
suspension would stand modified with order of compulsory
retirement passed by reviewing authority. It is submitted that
unless there is any specific order with regard to suspension
period is passed, petitioner is entitled to all regular benefits
as if no suspension existed on the date of final punishment,
i.e. the date of order of compulsory retirement. It is
respectfully submitted that when reviewing authority while
passing order of compulsory retirement, has not passed any
specific order with regard to denial of salary for suspension
period and other benefits, petitioner would be entitled to
receive such benefits and same having not paid by
respondent, it violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India.
5.7 Lastly, learned Advocate Mr. Mankad would respectfully
submit that as petitioner having denied retirement benefits by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
respondent bank without any just reason, he would be entitled
to receive interest on such amount.
5.8 To buttress his arguments, he has relied upon the
following judgments:
(i) Judgment dated 25.07.2012 rendered by High Court of
Madras in case of D. Kalaichelvan vs. Union of India
and another, being W.P.No.27311 of 2010.
(ii) Oral order dated 17.11.2021 passed by this Court in
the case of Vihang Ramnath Dholakia vs. Sundicate
Bank Through Regional Manager, being Special Civil
Application No.6112 of 2020.
(iii) Judgment dated 18.09.2013 rendered by High Court of
New Delhi in Deepak Sapra vs. Punjab National Bank,
being Letters Patent Appeal No.693 of 2013.
(iv) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.12.2013
rendered in case of Bank of Baroda vs. S.K.Kool (D)
Through Lrs. And another, being Civil Appeal
No.10956 of 2013.
(v) Judgment dated 06.12.2017 passed by High Court of
Patna in Allahabad Bank through Chairman-cum-
Managing Director and others vs. Dilip Kumar Sinha
s/o. Sri Raneshwar Pd Singh, being Letters Patent
Appeal No.414 of 2016.
(vi) Judgment dated 07.10.2014 rendered by this Court in
Keshavlal Amrutlal Prajapati vs. Principal and others -
2014 AIJEL-HC 231834.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT :
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Nagesh Sood for the
respondent bank would vehemently oppose the present
petition contending, inter alia, that there is no merit in the
claim of the petitioner and it is correctly denied by respondent
bank.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
6.1 Learned advocate Mr. Sood would respectfully submit
that petitioner was served with order of dismissal which was
later on modified, but major punishment of compulsory
retirement imposed upon him thereby, as per Regulation 1979
of respondent Bank, as well as communication dated
11/05/2015 of IBA, petitioner would not be entitled to receive
any benefit of leave encashment. It is respectfully submitted
that when any major penalty has been imposed upon
employee, such employee would not be entitled to receive any
leave encashment. It is further submitted that as per
Regulation No.4(h) of Union Bank of India Officer Employees'
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (hereinafter referred
to as "Regulation, 1976"), compulsory retirement fall in the
category of major penalty and thus, petitioner would not
entitle to receive benefit of leave encashment.
6.2 Learned advocate Mr. Sood would further submit that
when IBA at given point of time, accepted and decided that
officers of bank who would compulsorily retire from service
from 30/04/2015 onwards, entitle to receive leave
encashment. It is submitted that as such the order of
compulsory retirement in the case of petitioner passed on
27/06/2014, no benefit of leave encashment could have been
granted to petitioner, due to aforesaid communication of IBA.
6.3 Learned advocate Mr. Sood would respectfully submit
that as per Regulation 38 of Regulation 1979, in the cases of
dismissal, termination, or resignation, etc., all leave to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
credit of the officer shall lapse and as such, petitioner having
inflicted with order of major penalty i.e. compulsory
retirement, it tantamount to terminating his services
compulsorily by competent authority, thereby not entitled to
receive any benefit of leave encashment.
6.4 Learned advocate Mr. Sood would further submit that as
per Regulation No. 20(3)(iii) of Regulation, 1979, services of
petitioner would continue until final order which may be
passed in the inquiry initiated against him, thus, petitioner
would not be entitled to receive any pensionary benefit from
the date of order of dismissal but correctly awarded benefit of
pension from the date of his compulsory retirement, i.e.
27/06/2014. It is respectfully submitted that when order of
dismissal passed by respondent Bank on 09/02/2012,
petitioner would not entitle to receive any retirement benefit,
including pension but due to order of reviewing authority
passed on 27/06/2014, entitled to receive pensionary benefit
thereby, petitioner cannot be allowed to claim such benefit of
pension from the date of his actual superannuation i.e.
31/05/2011 and/or date of order of dismissal i.e. 09/02/2012,
as the case may be.
6.5 Learned advocate Mr. Sood would respectfully submit
that petitioner would not entitle to receive any other benefits,
i.e. subsistence allowance and/or any regular pay on getting
order of compulsory retirement. It is submitted that as per
Regulation No.15 of Regulation, 1976, unless there is a
specific order passed by competent authority, more
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
particularly Regulation No.15 (3) (b) of said regulation, period
of suspension would not be treated as a period spent on duty.
It is not in dispute that petitioner having not exonerated from
charge levelled against him in the inquiry, his case would fall
under Regulation No.15 (2) of Regulation, 1976 and having no
order regularizing period of suspension passed by competent
reviewing authority of respondent bank, such benefit not
available to petitioner.
6.6 Lastly, learned advocate Mr. Sood would respectfully
submit that as the petitioner came after a period of more than
four years from the date of denial of the benefit, no interest
should be awarded on any of the retirement benefits as
claimed in this petition and as such, none of the judgments
cited by learned advocate Mr. Mankad would be applicable to
the case of the petitioner.
6.7 To buttress his arguments, he has relied upon the
following judgments:
(i) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields
Limited vs. Sri Rabindranath Choubey - 2020 (18) SCC
(ii) State Bank of Patiala and another Versus Ram Niwas
Bansal (Dead) and Ors. - 2014 (12) SCC 106.
(iii) Manager, Arya Samaj, Girls Higher Secondary School
Versus Sunrita Thakur - 1991 (43) DLT 139 : 1991
LabIC 1882.
7. No other and further submissions are being made by
respective learned advocates.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:
8. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and having
regards to the aforesaid facts, according to my view,
following points arise for consideration :
(i) Whether Respondent Bank justified in denying the
benefits of leave encashment to Petitioner when allowed
him to compulsorily retire from service? If yes, petitioner
entitle to receive interest thereon?
(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, from which date petitioner entitled to
receive pensionary benefit?
(iii) Whether petitioner having inflicted with
punishment of compulsory retirement, entitled to receive
any difference of subsistence allowance and full pay for
the period of suspension till his age of superannuation?
ANALYSIS :
POINT NO.-(i)
9. The facts which are observed hereinabove are not in
dispute. Petitioner during his service inflicted with charge-
sheet by respondent bank whereby, initiated inquiry against
him. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of inquiry,
as petitioner reached to age of superannuation, id est,
31/05/2011. So, vide letter dated 10/05/2011, respondent
bank placed reliance upon its Regulation No. 20(3)(iii) of
Regulation, 1979, whereby clearly observed that though
petitioner will cease to be in service of respondent bank w.e.f.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
31/05/2011, until final conclusion of departmental inquiry
which is pending against him, his services will continue.
Accordingly, on completion of inquiry, the final order of
dismissal came to be passed by disciplinary authority on
09/02/2012. Once, the order of dismissal passed, petitioner
not entitled to receive any retiral benefits like leave
encashment, pension etc.
10. Nonetheless, petitioner first preferred appeal before
Appellate Authority of respondent bank who also did not grant
any relief in favour of the petitioner. Having not lost any hope,
petitioner approached the reviewing authority by way of
Memorial/Review who ultimately gave some sigh of relief to
petitioner by modifying the order of punishment from
dismissal to compulsory retirement. Such order came to be
passed by reviewing authority on 27/06/2014.
11. When reviewing authority allowed petitioner to be
compulsorily retired from service, then petitioner raised his
claim to get leave encashment benefit from respondent bank
which was denied on the ground that as per communication
dated 11/05/2015 of IBA, petitioner having inflicted with order
of penalty of compulsory retirement on 27/06/2014, his case
not covered by said communication, thereby told that not
entitle to receive any such benefit.
12. This Court has gone through communication of IBA
dated 11/05/2015 relied upon by respondent bank. True, as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
per aforesaid communication, IBA decided that any officer
who inflicted with order of compulsory retirement falls under
major penalty as per Regulation No. 4 (h) of Regulation, 1976,
entitle to receive benefit of leave encashment from
30/04/2015 onwards as managing committee met on
30/04/2015. While issuing aforesaid communication, IBA
taken note of the fact that several affected officers who
compulsorily retired approached different High Courts, which
granted benefit of leave encashment to them. Even
Government Of India through Department of Personnel &
Training (DOPT) vide its office memorandum dated
13/02/2006 decided to grant benefit of leave encashment to
employee who compulsorily retired from service. Still, IBA
thought it fit to consider to grant such benefit w.e.f.
30/04/2015.
13. After minutely going through aforesaid communication
of IBA, this Court is unable to find any logic behind fixing the
cut-off date by IBA i.e., 30/04/2015, for granting aforesaid
benefit of leave encashment to charged officer who received
penalty of compulsory retirement. As such, leave encashment
considered as privilege leave earned by employee during
course of his service, though could have encash it by enjoying
it during service, but for the reason, not enjoyed it with a
hope to receive monetary benefit by encash it when retired
from service. Furthermore, leave encashment benefit
available to employee as per statutory rules framed by
employer, then no decision contrary to rules can be taken
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
when to give effect of such benefit. There is no reasonable
nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by fixing such
cut-off date, inasmuch as, benefit of leave encashment would
be statutory benefit entitled to be received by officer as per
Regulation No.38 of Regulation, 1979, who earned such
privilege leave by rendering services to bank. It is well settled
position of law that while framing any policy to grant benefit,
when any cut-off date chosen by State (in present case
respondent bank, State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of
India) is arbitrary, irrational and no reasonable nexus with the
objects sought to be achieved by fixing such date, then such
fixation of cut-off date amounts to violation of Article 14 of
Constitution of India, requires to be interfered by the
Constitutional Court. [See : D.S. Nakara versus Union of
India - (1983) 1 SCC 305].
14. Be that as it may, even if for a time being, it is assumed
that IBA well within its right to fix the aforesaid cut-off date
i.e. 30/04/2015 to grant benefit of leave encashment to the
charged officer who compulsorily retires from 30/04/2015
onwards, then also petitioner could not have been deprived to
get such benefit by respondent Bank due to its own
Regulation, 1979 framed as per section 19 read with sub-
section (2) of section 12 of the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970.
15. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to
Regulation No.38 of Regulation, 1979 framed by respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
Bank itself, which reads as under:
"38. Lapse of leave:
Save as provided below, all leave to the credit of an Officer shall
lapse on resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal or
termination:
Provided that where an Officer retires from the Bank's
service, he shall be eligible to be paid a sum equivalent to
the emoluments of any period, not exceeding 240 days of
Privilege Leave he had accumulated:
Provided, further that where an Officer dies while in service, there
shall be payable to his legal representatives, a sum equivalent to
the emoluments for the period, not exceeding 240 days of Privilege
Leave to his credit as on the date of his death.
Provided also that where an officer leaves or discontinues his
services by resignation on or after 1 st April, 2001 after giving due
notice under sub-regulation 2 of Regulation 20, he may be paid a
sum equivalent to the emoluments in respect of the privilege leave
to the extent of half of such leave to his credit on the date of
cessation of service, subject to maximum of 120 days."
16. The bare reading of the aforesaid Regulation No.38
more particularly its first proviso would clearly indicate that
when any officer retires from the Bank services, he shall be
eligible to be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments of any
period, not exceeding 240 days of privilege leave he had
accumulated. There is nothing in aforesaid regulation which
would remotely suggest and/or indicate that reference of
retirement as mentioned in said regulation would not include
compulsory retirement. It may be true that compulsory
retirement may be one of major penalty falls under Regulation
No.4 (h) of Regulation, 1976. But, it would not mean that on
getting such compulsory retirement, petitioner would
disentitle to receive benefit of leave encashment. According to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
my view, when charged officer allow to retire in any form by
respondent bank, be it normal retirement having reaches to
the age of superannuation or compulsory retirement, as the
case may be, such officer would entitle to receive benefit of
leave encashment.
17. This issue is no longer remain res integra having decided
against respondent bank itself by High Court of Madras way
back in the year 2012, much prior to denial of such benefit by
respondent bank in the present case. The pertinent
observation of High Court of Madras in the case of D.
Kalaichelvan (supra), reads thus:
"17. The main challenge of the learned counsel for the
respondents, to the claim of encashment of accumulated privilege
leave and gratuity is that the petitioner was imposed a punishment
of compulsory retirement on account of misconduct which resulted
in huge loss to the bank, which debars the petitioners to
encashment of privilage leave and gratuity.
*** *** ***
21. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently
contends, that the interpretation sought to be given by the learned
counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, as reading of the
regulation shows that leave to the credit of the officer lapses on
resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal or termination
from service. The word 'termination' would include compulsory
retirement, and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to encashment
of accumulated privilege leave.
22. This contention of the learned counsel for the respondent
cannot be accepted. The termination can be by two modes, i.e.
simple termination in terms of contract and service without
attaching any stigma, the employee can also be terminated for
misconduct with stigma, but by no stretch of imagination
termination can cover compulsory retirement.
23. The very object of imposing punishment of compulsory
retirement for misconduct, is that an employee should not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
lose benefit which accrued to him for the service rendered
till the date of compulsory retirement. The Regulation 38
being beneficial piece of legislation has to be interpreted to
advance the object and not to defeat it and in case two
views are possible one favouring the employee is to be
accepted. In this case, no other view than the one that
employee imposed with punishment of compulsory
retirement is entitled to encashment of privilege leave can
be formed."
(emphasis supplied)
18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
present case and when undisputedly reviewing authority
modified the order of punishment from dismissal to
compulsory retirement, in view of the aforesaid Regulation
No.38 of Regulation, 1979, petitioner would entitle to receive
benefit of leave encashment, which was wrongly denied by
respondent.
19. Apart from above, it is well settled legal position that
when any executive decision (in present case aforesaid
communication of IBA) is found contrary to statutory
rule/regulation, than it would not be sustainable in law, as no
execution instruction/order/notification be issued in
derogation to statutory regulation and cannot be substitute of
the statutory rules [See : Bank of Baroda & Ors. versus G
Palani & Ors. - (2022) 5 SCC 612, para-28].
20. At last, it needs to be observed that petitioner having
requested such benefit to be granted, but denied by
respondent bank on citing communication of IBA dated
11/05/2015, which is not sustainable in law, inasmuch as,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
entitlement of the petitioner to receive benefit of leave
encashment would be governed by aforesaid Regulation No.38
and not by said communication. Furthermore, in consimili
casu, of charged officer, when respondent bank was directed
by High Court of Madras in case of D.Kalaichelvan (supra),
to pay such benefit that too in the year 2012, this Court was
informed by both learned advocates that there was no further
challenge by respondent Bank against the said decision, it
would more incumbent upon respondent Bank to grant benefit
of leave encashment to the petitioner when sought for. In fact,
when different High Court passed the orders in this regards,
which made known and brought to notice of IBA when issued
aforesaid communication, as can be discernible from first part
of said communication dated 11/05/2015 issued by IBA,
respondent bank could have easily grant such benefit to
petitioner without drawing any cut-off date. In that view of the
matter, now, respondent is liable to pay such benefit of leave
encashment to petitioner with interest.
21. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, decision of respondent
bank denying benefit of leave encashment to petitioner is not
sustainable in law, rather found ex facie erroneous, perverse,
arbitrary and contrary to own statutory regulation, thereby
liable to be quashed and set aside. This Court further hold
that no reasonable nexus with the objects sought to be
achieved by fixing cut-off date by IBA i.e. 30/04/2015 to grant
benefit of leave encashment to the charged officer, then its
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
22. When decision of respondent bank found to be
unsustainable in law and denial and withhold of monetary
benefit is unjustified thereby, petitioner deprived of monetary
benefit for quite long time, thus, considering overall facts and
circumstances and when petitioner also approached this
Court little late by way of this writ petition filed in July, 2019
instead of in year 2015 itself when denied benefit, in that view
of the matter, petitioner is entitled to receive benefit of leave
encashment from respondent bank with 7.5% interest from
01/01/2020 till its realization. Point No. (i) answered
accordingly.
POINT NO.-(ii)
23. The petitioner during pendency of inquiry reached to the
age of superannuation, thereby respondent - bank having
placed reliance upon Regulation 20(3)(iii) of Regulation, 1979,
vide its letter dated 10/05/2011 observed that though
petitioner is going to reach to age of superannuation, i.e.,
31/05/2011, thereby he will cease to be in services of the bank
from such date, still disciplinary proceeding will continue as if
he is in the service until the proceedings are concluded and
final order passed in respect thereof. So, in view of the
aforesaid letter, as per said regulation of respondent - bank,
services of petitioner continued beyond age of superannuation
which got over on conclusion of disciplinary proceeding, when
final order passed by disciplinary authority. Till such time,
relationship between petitioner and respondent bank subsist
as employee-employer respectively.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
23.1 It is not in dispute that the order of punishment of
dismissal substituted to compulsory retirement whereby
petitioner ordered to be compulsorily retired from services of
bank. There cannot be any dispute, rather undoubtedly said
substitution of punishment would consider as major penalty
(see - Regulation No. 4 (h) of Regulation, 1976). At the same
time, when such order passed by reviewing authority of
respondent bank on 27/06/2014, as noted down in the facts,
the aforesaid order would not indicate any specific date fixed
by reviewing authority, i.e., actual date of compulsory
retirement of petitioner from the services of the bank. In this
view of the matter, this Court needs to analyze the
submissions advanced by respective learned advocates.
24. As such facts noted not in dispute, but to better
understand and conclude this point, it is desirable to have a
reference of Regulation 20(3)(iii) of Regulation 1979, which
reads as under :
"20. Termination of service :
(3)(iii) The officer against whom disciplinary proceeding have
been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of
superannuation but the disciplinary proceeding will
continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are
concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. The
concerned officer will not receive any pay and/or allowance, after
the date of superannuation. He will also not be entitled for the
payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed
and final order is passed thereon except his own contribution to
CPF."
(emphasis supplied)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
24.1 In view of the aforesaid provision, there is no cavil that
even after reaching to the age of superannuation, petitioner
deemed to be in service of respondent bank until the
disciplinary proceeding initiated against him concluded and
final order passed. Further, as per Full Bench decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rabindranath Choubey
(supra), considering somewhat similar rules as referred
hereinabove wherein held thus :
"47. Thus considering the provisions of Rules 34.2 and 34.3 of the CDA Rules,
the inquiry can be continued given the deeming fiction in the same manner
as if the employee had continued in service and appropriate punishment,
including that of dismissal can be imposed apart from the forfeiture of the
gratuity wholly or partially including the recovery of the pecuniary loss as the
case may be."
(emphasis supplied)
25. Ordinarily, when order of compulsory retirement of
charged officer passed and if such officer not reached to age
of superannuation, then naturally, the date of such order
would consider as date of his retirement. But when such
officer already crosses the age of superannuation and then
after inflicted with punishment order whereby compulsory
retired from the services, in that eventuality, as observed
above, due to said regulation, he deemed to be compulsory
retired from service at the end of such department
proceeding.
25.1 Having considered the aforesaid facts and reading said
provision of Regulation, 1979, it can be gainsaid that when
petitioner preferred memorial/review before the reviewing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
authority, he was no longer remain in services of respondent
bank as already dismissed from service w.e.f. 09/02/2012.
25.2 Learned advocate Mr. Sood unable to show any other
provisions than referred above, whereby one can assume that
even after conclusion of the inquiry, whereby petitioner
dismissed from his services of the bank, still he would remain
continue in service till Review decided by the competent
authority on 27/06/2014. Such would not be an interpretation
of aforesaid regulation, inasmuch as, in absence of any
express provision in this regards, no legal deeming fiction can
be stretch beyond the point, otherwise it leads to absurdity.
25.3 As can be seen, in the case on hand, such departmental
proceeding concluded when disciplinary authority passed final
order on 09/02/2012 whereby, imposed the punishment of
dismissal upon the petitioner. According to my view, plain and
simple reading of aforesaid Regulation 20(3)(iii) and
considering the ratio of Rabindranath Choubey (supra), it
can be deduced that services of petitioner stands terminated
w.e.f. 09/02/2012 and till such time, services of petitioner
remained continue with respondent bank, but not beyond such
period.
26. Now, if one can see, it is the stand taken by respondent
bank that petitioner compulsorily retired from service from
date of order of review i.e. 27/06/2014. Nonetheless,
respondent bank in its affidavit-in-reply filed on 04/01/2022 in
this matter, wherein in para-5 stated thus:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
"... ... that the petitioner has been compulsory retired from the
service on 31/05/2011 and the order of compulsory retirement in
respect of petitioner is prior to the effective date of IBA Circular
dated 11/05/2015. ... ..."
Prima facie, the tenor of aforesaid affidavit-in-reply would
suggest that bank treated petitioner compulsory retired from
service from 31/05/2011 i.e. date of superannuation.
26.1 Nevertheless, as observed hereinabove, when as per
Regulation 20(3)(iii), services of petitioner deemed to be
continued until conclusion of disciplinary proceeding initiated
against him, then for such purposes, petitioner would not be
considered as retired from service. But when inflicted with
final order of dismissal on conclusion of inquiry, that would be
a last date of petitioner in services of respondent bank i.e.
09/02/2012.
27. As such, the stand taken by respondent bank whereby
granted petitioner pensionary benefit w.e.f. 27/06/2014, the
day on which order of compulsory retirement passed, is
nothing an erroneous observation and perverse decision of
respondent - bank, inasmuch as, petitioner was no longer
remained in service of respondent bank after 09/02/2012, as
already crossed the age of superannuation and in fact,
dismissal order passed thereafter on 09/02/2012.
28. Thus, after having considered and analyzed the
submissions so canvassed by the respective learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
advocates, taking into account the orders passed by
respondent bank as discussed hereinabove and so also effect
of Regulation No.20(3)(iii) and ratio of said decision, I am of
the view that correct and appropriate date of compulsory
retirement of petitioner would not be later than last date of
his services with the respondent bank, i.e., 09/02/2012 instead
of 27/06/2014. As a consequence, petitioner is entitled to
receive pensionary benefit w.e.f. 09/02/2012, instead of
27/06/2014.
29. At the same time, this Court does not finds any malice on
part of respondent bank when granted pensionary benefit
w.e.f. 27/06/2014 instead of 09/02/2012, and as such, through
interpretation, this Court herein above held that petitioner
entitle to receive pensionary benefit w.e.f. 09/02/2012 then, in
such circumstances, not awarding any interest on arrears of
such amount to be paid to petitioner by respondent bank,
except directing bank to pay at earliest, failing which saddled
with liability of interest. Point No. (ii) answered accordingly.
POINT NO.-(iii)
30. The petitioner is claiming difference of subsistence
allowance and full pay for the period of suspension till
31/05/2011 i.e. date of superannuation, on the pretext that
petitioner was compulsorily retired from service. Such benefit
cannot be available and not entitled to be received by
petitioner simply on the ground that while passing the order
of compulsory retirement, competent authority has not
regularized the period of suspension to grant such benefit.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
31. It would be apt to refer Regulation No.15 of Regulation,
1976, which reads as under :
"15. PAY, ALLOWANCES AND TREATMENT OF SERVICE ON
TERMINATION OF SUSPENSION:
1) Where the Competent Authority holds that the Officer
Employee has been fully exonerated or that the suspension was
unjustifiable the Officer Employee concerned shall be granted the
full pay to which he would have been entitled, had he not been
suspended, together with any allowance of which he was in receipt
immediately prior to his suspension, or may have been sanctioned
subsequently and made applicable to all Officer Employees.
2) In all cases other than those referred in Sub-regulation (1),
the Officer Employee shall be granted such proportion of pay and
allowances as the Competent Authority may direct;
Provided that the payment of allowances under this Sub-
regulation shall be subject to all other conditions to which such
allowances are admissible;
Provided further that the payment and allowances granted
under this Sub-regulation shall not be less than the Subsistence and
Other Allowances admissible under Regulation 14.
3) (a) In a case falling under Sub-regulation (1), the period of
absence from duty shall, for all purposes, be treated as a period
spent on duty.
(b) In a case falling under Sub-regulation (2), the period of
absence from duty shall not be treated as a period spent on duty
unless the Competent Authority specifically directs, for reasons
to be recorded in writing, that it shall be so treated for any
specific purpose."
(emphasis supplied)
32. As per said Regulation No.15 (2) read with 15(3)(b),
unless specifically observed by competent authority while
passing any order that period of absence from duty shall be
treated as spent on duty, such period of suspension cannot be
allowed to be treated as a period spent on duty. As such,
learned advocate Mr. Mankad for petitioner unable to point
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
out any other regulations than referred herein above, framed
by respondent bank whereby, petitioner can claim such
benefit, rather during course of his submission, unable to
countenance his submission.
33. In that view of the matter, in absence of any specific
order passed by reviewing authority while modifying the order
of punishment, i.e. dismissal to compulsory retirement, as
regards period of suspension passed thereby, having not
regularized such period and as such period of suspension was
not treated to be spent on duty, thus, such claim of petitioner
sought for difference of subsistence allowance and full pay for
the period of suspension till age of superannuation cannot be
accepted, which is hereby denied. Point No. (iii) answered
accordingly.
CONCLUSION :
34. The upshot of the aforesaid observation, discussion and
reasons, following conclusion is drawn:
34.1 The petitioner is entitled to receive benefit of leave
encashment when allowed to compulsory retire from service.
As respondent bank failed to pay such benefit to petitioner,
rather withheld such benefit without any valid justification,
then liable to pay benefit of leave encashment to the
petitioner with interest at the rate of 7.5% from 01/01/2020
till its realization. Such benefits be calculated including
amount of leave encashment and be paid to petitioner on or
before 31/01/2026.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12495/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
34.2 Having regards to facts of present case and foregoing
reasons, petitioner deemed to be compulsorily retired from
services of respondent bank w.e.f. 09/02/2012 instead of
27/06/2014. Accordingly, petitioner is also entitle to receive
pensionary benefit w.e.f. 09/02/2012 instead of 27/06/2014.
The respondent bank is hereby directed to calculate the
arrears amount of pensionary benefit for period between
09/02/2012 to 27/6/2014 and same shall be paid to petitioner
on or before 31/01/2026, failing which petitioner will entitle to
receive such arrears amount (pensionary benefits) with
interest at the rate of 7.5% from 01/02/2026 till its realization.
34.3 As the competent authority of respondent bank has not
regularized period of suspension of petitioner while passing
order of compulsory retirement and as such, petitioner not
fully exonerated from the charges on conclusion of the
inquiry, in that view of the matter and as per Regulation No.
15 (2) read with 15 (3) (b) of Regulation, 1976, petitioner is
not entitled to receive any difference of subsistence allowance
and full pay of salary for the period of suspension till he
reached to the age of superannuation. Accordingly, such
benefit is hereby denied.
35. In view of the foregoing conclusion, present writ petition
is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid
extent. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
