JUDGMENT :

The matter has been listed today for consideration through video conferencing in view of the nationwide lockdown on account of COVID-19 pandemic.

2. The learned counsels are appearing and making submissions from their residence. The Court Master and Secretary are also part of this virtual Court proceedings from their homes, all with the aid of audio visual technology.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank have made their submissions.

4. The writ petition substantially claims pensionary benefits and leave encashment dues.

5. The relevant facts are that on 14.12.2015 a charge memo was issued to the petitioner for alleged misconduct while posted as Branch Manager in the Bargaon Branch when he was a Scale-II Officer. On 28.12.2014, i.e., three days prior to his superannuation, which was due on 31.12.2015, the petitioner was served with a letter (Annexure 1(A)). By the said communication, the petitioner was to continue as in service until the proceedings initiated under charge memo dated 14.12.2015 were concluded and final order was passed in respect thereof. The communication was in terms of Regulation 45(3) of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2010 Regulations). The communication was explicit to the effect that the petitioner would not receive any pay or allowances after the date of superannuation (31.12.2015). He would also not be entitled to payment of retirement benefits till conclusion of the proceedings by passing of final order therein, except his own contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund. Such stipulation was in terms of Regulation 45(4) of the 2010 Regulations.

6. In the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner has been visited with the punishment of compulsory retirement. The same is dated 19.10.2016 and the punishment of compulsory retirement is under Regulation 39(1)(b)(iii) of the 2010 Regulations.

7. The petitioner’s Counsel submits that in view of the Gazette Notification dated 02.11.2018 (Annexure 6 of the writ petition), the petitioner cannot be deprived of his pensionary dues’ entitlement on account of punishment of compulsory retirement. Referring to the Gazette Notification dated 02.11.2018 notifying Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2018 Regulations), he submits that Regulation 20 thereof contemplates forfeiture of service only in case of resignation not amounting to voluntary retirement, dismissal, removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank. He submits that compulsory retirement has consciously been not mentioned in Regulation 20 of the 2018 Regulations.

Further referring to Regulation 31 of the 2018 Regulations, the petitioner’s Counsel submits that an employee who compulsorily retired from service as a penalty would be entitled to grant of pension at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement. He submits that a conjoint reading of these two provisions in 2018 Regulations makes it clear that the order of compulsory retirement does not entail forfeiture of his service and that he is entitled to pension at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement.

In the alternative, the petitioner’s Counsel has submitted that even if the petitioner is covered by the 2010 Regulations, then also he would be entitled to the benefit of leave encashment for 240 days and denial of the same is legally unsustainable.

8. Learned counsel representing the respondent-Bank submits that the claims made in the writ petition are devoid of any merit and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Referring to the 2018 Regulations, it is submitted that the same cannot be made the basis of the petitioner’s claim for pension, since it has come into force in the ye