JUDGMENT :

1. These two writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts are not at all in dispute. The two writ petitioners came in the service of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, while the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 17150 of 2017 joined as a Clerk at the Tekari Branch of the Bank and later on got promoted to the Officer Grade, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 17256 of 2017 joined the service of the Bank as an Officer and served in different capacities in different branches of the Bank.

3. The petitioners were due to retire from service on 31.07.2013 and 31.03.2014 respectively. Few days prior to their due date of retirement from service they were served with a chargesheet. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 17150 of 2017 was served with a chargesheet dated 18.07.2013 (Annexure ‘1’). He was called upon to submit his defence to the charges within five days from the date of receipt of the letter. The disciplinary authority invoked Regulations 45(3) and 45(4) of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulation of 2010’). By virtue of exercise of power under the Regulation of 2010 the petitioner was deemed to be in service till completion of the disciplinary proceeding but during pendency of disciplinary proceeding he was not entitled to claim salary and other emoluments, the retiral benefits save and except his own contribution to the contributory provident fund could not be withdrawn.

4. Similarly, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 17256 of 2017 was served with a chargesheet on 12.03.2014 (Annexure ‘1’). He was directed to submit his defence within seven days from the date of receipt of the letter. In his case as well the provision as contained in Regulation 45(3) and 45(4) of the Regulations of 2010 were invoked. After completion of inquiry the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of compulsory retirement as prescribed under Regulation 39(1)( [k )(iii) of the Regulations 2010. In case of petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 17150 of 2017 the order of punishment was issued on 02.02.2015 whereas the same order was passed in respect of petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 17256 of 2017 on 24.01.2015.

5. The departmental appeals preferred by both the petitioners were dismissed. Thereafter they submitted their respective applications for payment of gratuity and other retiral dues which were not replied to. Both the petitioners approached the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and on contest the controlling authority directed the respondent Bank to pay the entire gratuity amount with interest to the petitioners. The orders of the controlling authority were complied with. Before the controlling authority the respondent Bank had taken a plea that in view of the imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement the petitioners would not be entitled for gratuity but the said contention was rejected by the controlling authority. Since the petitioners have not been paid their leave encashment amount, they have moved this Court in the present writ applications.

6. Their common prayer is to issue a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Bank to pay the amount due to the petitioner(s) against the leave encashment upon their retirement from service with interest thereon.

7. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the Service Regulations of 2010, compulsory retirement is one of the punishments prescribed under Regulation 39. A punishment of compulsory retirement could not, however, forfeit the past services rendered by the petitioners to the Bank. Learned counsel has placed before this Court Annexure ‘3’ enclosed with C.W.J.C. No. 17150 of 2017 which is HRD Circular No. 730 dated 11.12.2015 issued by the General Manager Punjab National Bank, Human Resources Development Division. No doubt the HRD Circular is in respect of the Officers of the Punjab National Bank