CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5385 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 09 ,2011 Ranvir Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Canara Bank, Bangalore and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Manish Bhatnagar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mahesh Dheer, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. These three petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos.5383 of 2009 (Ranvir Singh Vs. Canara Bank, Bangalore and others), 6092 of 2009 (Jinder Singh Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi and others) and 16287 of 2009 (K.L.Vig Vs. Canara Bank, Bangalore and others, were ordered to be compulsorily retired by respective Banks where they were employed. Two petitioners were employed in Canara Bank whereas third petitioner was an employee of Oriental Bank of Commerce. All the three CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5385 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: petitioners were denied the payment of leave encashment on the ground that they had been compulsorily retired and hence, would not be entitled to the payment of leave encashment. These petitioners accordingly have filed the above-noted three separate writ petitions to challenge the orders, denying leave encashment and for direction to the respondents to release their respective leave encashment payable to them. First the facts, which are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.5385 of 2009. The petitioner having been selected on the basis of All India Competitive Examination conducted by Banking Service Recruitment Board was appointed in the Canara Bank as Agriculture Extension Officer on 26.12.1989. The petitioner claims to have earned very good A.C.Rs for the period from 1990 to 2000. On 6.5.1999, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner complains that without affording him proper opportunity to defend, he was found guilty of two charges that too by holding a proceedings in violation of principles of natural justice. On 1.6.2000, the petitioner was imposed a punishment of dismissal from service. However, on a representation made by him, the respondents reduced the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement on 1.1.2001. The petitioner filed a review against the same but it was rejected on 9.1.2003. Thereafter the petitioner requested for settling his retiral benefits i.e. Provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment etc. He made various representations from 2004 to 2007, especially for payment of leave encashment. When nothing happened, the petitioner served a CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5385 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: legal notice on 3.4.2008 for payment of his leave encashment balance. Respondent-Bank declined the claim, holding that he was not entitled to leave encashment as he had been compulsorily retired by way of punishment. The petitioner has filed this petition to challenge this order and for direction to the respondents to release his leave encashment. The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.16827 of 2009 is also an employee of Canara Bank. Initially, the petitioner was an employee of Laxmi Commercial Bank, where he joined the service on 24.8.1985. Laxmi Commercial Bank merged with Canara Bank and the petitioner became an employee of the Canara Bank, where he was designated as Accountant Scale 1. He has also been ordered to be compulsorily retired vide order dated 30.12.2006. His appeal was dismissed on 30.8.2007. This petitioner also has made various representations for release of leave encashment and then served a legal notice on 4.9.2009. He has, thus, also approached this Court for release of his leave encashment. The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.6092 of 2009 is aggrieved against the action of the respondents in withdrawing the order granting him leave encashment. He was also charge sheeted on 17.4.2007 and ordered to be compulsorily retired on 17.4.2007. The petitioner made a prayer for payment of leave encashment for 162 days leave, which was granted on 29.9.2007 and, thus, order for payment of Rs.1,58,889/- was issued. Suddenly, thereafter, without affording any opportunity of hearing, another order was passed on 25.10.2007, withdrawing the grant of leave encashment on the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5385 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: ground that the same was wrongly granted. The petitioner represented against the same and when the Bank declined to accede to his request, he filed various representations and has ultimately approached the Court through present writ petition for release of his leave encashment. All the three petitioners in these separate writ petitions have been denied leave encashment on the ground that they are not entitled to as they were compulsorily retired by way of punishment. The main basis for denying the payment of leave encashment is Regulation 38 of the Canara Bank (Officers Service) Regulation, 1979. This Regulation 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 for any reason. Provided that where an officer retires from the service of the bank, he shall be eligible to be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments of any period, not exceeding 240 days of privilege leaves that he had accumulated.” The plea on the basis of this Regulation appears to be that all leave to the credit of officers shall lapse on resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal or termination for any reason. Apparently, this plea is being made, ignoring the proviso. A similar provision of the Regulation applicable to UCO Bank employees came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar Sharma Vs. UCO Bank and others, 2006 (4) SCT 171. While CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5385 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: interpreting identical Regulation 38 regarding right to leave encashment, when person is compulsorily retired, this Court has held that such an accrued benefit can not be denied. The relevant observations in Ashwani Kumar Sharma's case (supra) are as under:- “Here again it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to leave encashment as his services stood terminated by the order of compulsory retirement. The respondents again are apparently not clearly appreciating the provisions of Regulation 38 reproduced above. This Regulation makes a provision for lapse of leave by saying that all leave to the credit of an officer shall lapse on resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal or termination. This part of the Regulation is not making provision for payment of leave encashment and only talks of lapse of leave in the eventualities as mentioned in the Regulation. If this contention of the respondents is to be upheld then even on retirement, death/discharge, etc. the leave encashment should not be payable as the leave is supposed to lapse in these eventualities as well. This provision only makes it clear that in the events, as mentioned in the Regulation leave to the credit will lapse. The provision in regard to the payment of leave encashment is made in the proviso, wherein it is stated that when an officer retires from a bank service, he shall be eligible to be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5385 OF 2009 :{ 6 }: of any period not exceeding 240 days of privilege leave that he had accumulated. Second proviso makes a provision for payment of leave encashment to the legal representative of the officer who dies while in service. The proviso makes a retired employee eligible for payment of leave encashment. Contention, though not raised; appears to be that the petitioner had not been retired but was terminated and would not be eligible for the leave encashment. The submission made was only that the leave would lapse in case of termination. I am forced to repeat that the petitioner had been retired though compulsorily and cannot be treated as dismissed, removed or terminated employee. End of his employment is with the grant of retiral benefits. Since the petitioner, as already held cannot be treated as terminated employee, his right to receive leave encashment cannot be denied. Even otherwise, a bare reading of this provision would show that the action of not paying leave encashment to the petitioner on the basis of this Regulation is apparently misconceived. The leave due to the petitioner may have lapsed on account of coming to end of his service. The petitioner is an officer who has been retired though compulsorily. At least this provision i.e. Regulation 38 of the Service Regulations to my mind cannot be advanced to deny the payment of leave encashment to the petitioner. Reading of the part of Regulation relating to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5385 OF 2009 :{ 7 }: lapse of leave to say that the petitioner would not be entitled to receive encashment of leave that he had accumulated, in my view, may do violation to the provisions of the Regulations.” Identical is the provision on the basis of which the petitioners have been denied payment of leave encashment. It is pointed out before me that the decision in the case of Ashwani Kumar Sharma (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court by dismissing the L.P.A on 1.2.2010. The Division Bench has also viewed that there is no provision for withholding gratuity and leave encashment in case of compulsory retirement. The issue being, thus, fairly settled, the impugned orders can not be sustained. All the writ petitions are, therefore, allowed. Respective impugned orders in all the three writ petitions are quashed and directions are hereby issued to the respondents to release the leave encashment due to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. March 09,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE