IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1147 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 13, 2011 Oriental Bank of Commerce …Appellant Versus Jinder Singh …Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR, J.J.J.J. 1. This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenges judgment dated 9.3.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge allowing the bunch of three writ petitions including CWP No. 6092 of 2009 out of which the instant appeal has arisen. 2. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition because Regulation 38 of the Canara Bank (Officers Service) Regulation, 1979, which is pari materia to Regulation 38 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce Officers Service Regulations (for brevity 'the Regulations’) has not been found applicable to deny the benefit of leave encashment to the writ petitioner-respondent, who has been compulsorily retired on the basis of findings recorded in an inquiry. In LPA No. 1147 of 2011 (O&M) 2 that regard the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on his earlier judgment rendered in the case of Ashwani Kumar Sharma Ashwani Kumar Sharma Ashwani Kumar Sharma Ashwani Kumar Sharma v. v. v. v. UCO Bank UCO Bank UCO Bank UCO Bank and others nd others nd others nd others, 2006 (6) SLR 660 2006 (6) SLR 660 2006 (6) SLR 660 2006 (6) SLR 660, where similar Regulation applicable to UCO Bank was cited and the argument was rejected. Against the aforesaid judgment, LPA No. 191 of 2006 was filed, which was dismissed on 01.02.2010. 3. It is undisputed that the impugned judgment dated 9.3.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge was subject matter of challenge in LPA No. 1007 of 2011 (Canara Bank and others v. Ranvir Singh). By judgment dated 2.6.2011, passed in LPA No. 1007 of 2011, we have already endorsed the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the light of the observations made in paras 7 and 8 of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India Union of India Union of India Union of India v. v. v. v. Gurnam Singh Gurnam Singh Gurnam Singh Gurnam Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1265 , AIR 1982 SC 1265 , AIR 1982 SC 1265 , AIR 1982 SC 1265. Accordingly, for the parity of reasoning, the instant appeal is also dismissed in terms of our judgment dated 2.6.2011 passed in LPA No. 1007 of 2011. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) July 1 July 1 July 1 July 13, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor