IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.241 of 2009 1. THE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER, MUZAFFARPUR ZONE, PANKAJ MARKET, SARAIYAGANJ, P.S. SARAIYAGANJ, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, STAR HOUSE, C-5, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI. 3. THE CHIEF MANAGER / DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, BANK OF INDIA, MUZAFFARPUR ZONE, PANKAJ MARKET, SARAIYAGANJ, P.S. SARAIYAGANJ, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE ZONAL MANGAR, BANK OF INDIA, MUZAFFARPUR ZONE, P.S. SARAIYAGANJ, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. 5.THE BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, SAHASRAM BRANCH, P.O. AND P.S. SURSAND, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. -RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS VERSUS SUKHENDRA DUBEY, S/O BAIDYANATH DUBEY, R/O NEW COLONY, GANDHI CHAUK, P.S. AND DIST-SARAN. -PETITIONER- RESPONDENT ***** For the Appellant : Mr. Shivaji Pandey For Respondent no.1: M/s Abhay Kr. Singh & Suresh Chandra Giri 2 23.03.2009 The petitioner-respondent was appointed as Sub-Staff in the appellant Bank on 1.12.1969. He got promotion after thirty three (33) years of unblemished service. In October, 2002 he was charge sheeted which 2 resulted in his removal from service issued on 03rd July, 2003. The relevant portion of the punishment order reads as follows: “All the aforesaid punishment will run concurrently the consolidated effect of which would be removal from Bank’s service with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations and without disqualification from future employment in terms of para 6(b) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10.4.2002.” Since in the order it was specifically stated that he will be entitled to superannuation benefits he did not challenge the order. But when he was not given the superannuation benefits he approached this Court. The contention of the appellant is that in view of Regulation 22(1) of the Pension Regulations he is not entitled to pension as he was removed from service. Clause 22 of the Bank Employees Regulation, 1995 clearly says that if a person is dismissed or removed from service of the Bank he shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. Rule 27 also says that on such dismissal he will forfeit all the compassionate benefit also. After the Regulation bipartite settlement was entered into between the parties and which is binding on both sides. The settlement clause (6) deals with 3 punishment if one is found guilty of misconduct. Clause 6(b) reads as follows: “6. An employee found guilty of gross misconduct may: (a)xxxx (b) be removed from service with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and /or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment; It is true that under the above if an employee can be dismissed from service. But in this case he was only removed from service specially under Clause 6(b) of the Rules will follow. In the termination order it was specifically stated that he will be entitled to all the retiral benefits as per under Clause 6(b) of the Settlement. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision in the case of Indian Bank and another Vrs. G. Ramachandran and Others; (2008) 1 SCC 711. It is not a case in which petitioner was removed from service with a specific condition that he will be entitled to superannuation benefit as provided under the Regulation. The question to be considered in this case is that whether the respondent is entitled to superannuation benefit as provided under Clause 6(b). It was argued that even under Clause 6(b) it was 4 specifically stated that pension, provident fund and gratuity would be payable as would be due otherwise under the Rules and Regulations. In other words, even if Regulation says otherwise, in view of para 6(b) of the settlement, one will be entitled to superannuation benefit. If such benefit is not payable, there is no need for stating in the termination order that superannuation benefits is payable to him. Petitioner had 33 years of long service. But in view of the specific condition in the removal order that he is entitled to pensionary benefit he did not challenge the same. In any event, we agree with the reason given by the learned Single Judge so we are not reiterating the same. There is no ground to allow the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (J.B. Koshy, CJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) AAhmad