IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B. BAJANTHRI, ARUN KUMAR JHA, JJ.
Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank – Appellant
Versus
Atmesh Kumar Roy Son of-Gupteshwari Charan Sinha – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No.33 of 2021 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17150 of 2017
Decided on : 02-01-2023
Leave Encashment - Retirement Benefits - Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), Regulation No. 39, Regulation No. 45, Regulation No. 67
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the order of the Single Judge in favor of the respondent, who sought a writ of mandamus for the payment of leave encashment upon retirement. The appellant contended that the respondent, retired compulsorily as a penalty, is not entitled to the relief sought.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appellant's contention regarding the entitlement of the respondent to leave encashment upon compulsory retirement was unfounded. The Court held that the respondent is entitled to all retiral benefits, including monetary benefits, as if he had retired at the age of superannuation on the date of penalty imposition.
Issues: The main issue was whether an employee retired compulsorily as a penalty is entitled to leave encashment and other retiral benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the relevant regulations and held that the withholding of leave encashment from an employee retired as a penalty amounts to imposition of dual penalty, which is not identified under the regulations. The Court emphasized that the employee is entitled to all retiral benefits, including monetary benefits, upon compulsory retirement as a penalty.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Court upheld the order of the Single Judge in favor of the respondent.
JUDGMENT :
P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.
In the instant L.P.A, appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.09.2020 passed in C.W.J.C No. 17150 of 2017. The respondent-Atmesh Kumar Roy in C.W.J.C No. 17150 of 2017 has prayed for the following relief:-
“That the petitioner in this writ application prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Bank to pay the amount due to the petitioner against Leave Encashment when he retired from service on 31.07.2013 with interest of the due amount.”
2. The learned Single Judge allowed the C.W.J.C No. 17150 of 2017 in favour of respondent-Atmesh Kumar Roy hence, the present appeal by the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank.
3. On 01.12.2022 the following order was passed.
“Learned counsel for the appellant is hereby directed to apprise this Court which are the relevant regulation number like procedure for imposition of major penalty/minor penalty, action on the Inquiry Officer report by the disciplinary authority. Further, is there any provision under the disciplinary regulation, if an employee is retired compulsorily as a measure of penalty in that event he is not entitled to which are the benefits. In the present case, respondent has been retired compulsorily as a measure of penalty, in such an event his retirement would be effective from the date of imposition of compulsorily retirement penalty, in such circumstances respondent employee is entitled to all monetary benefits as if he has retired on the date of imposition of penalty. The very object of imposition of penalty of compulsorily retirement as a measure of penalty is to weed out his services, however, he is entitled to all retiral benefits with reference to date of imposition of penalty. In other words, it amounts to pre-mature retirement in that event question of withholding or non entitlement of leave encashment is the subject matter.
Regulation 67 refers to retirement and there is no specific words like retirement compulsorily as a measure of penalty or in the normal course retirement after completion of age of superannuation. In this regard learned counsel for the appellant is hereby directed to get instruction.
Relist this matter on 15.12.2022.”
4. Today learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that having regard to the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement under Regulation No. 39 of Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (for short Regulations, 2010). Respondent is not entitled to relief sought in the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Regulation No. 2(a) deals with “Act” means the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976). Further, he has pointed out Regulation No. 39(b) under explanation 2(i) proviso to contain that competent authority is empower to imposition of penalty. Further, he has pointed out Regulation No. 45.
6. Regulation No. 45 Reads as under:-
45. Disciplinary proceedings after retirement, -(1) An officer or employee who is under suspension on a charge of misconduct and who attains the age of superannuation, shall be deemed to be in service even after the age of superannuation for the specific purpose of continuation and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and issue of final orders thereon.
(2) The officer or employee who is under suspension shall not be eligible for any subsistence allowance for the period beyond the date of superannuation.
(3) The officer or employee against whom disciplinary proceeding has been initiated shall cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary shall continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof.
(4) The officer or employee against whom disciplinary proceedings has been initiated shall not receive any pay and/or allowances after the date of superannuation and also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceeding is completed and final order is passed t
AI
An employee retired compulsorily as a measure of penalty is entitled to all retiral benefits, including monetary benefits, as if he has retired on the date of imposition of penalty. Withholding of Le....
The judgment establishes that leave encashment entitlement under Regulation 67 must be read in conjunction with Regulation 61(4) and applies to cases of death, retirement, or termination owing to ret....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an employee to leave encashment benefits upon compulsory retirement, as per Regulation 38 and judicial interpretations, and the ....
Compulsory retirement does not bar an employee from receiving gratuity or leave encashment under certain conditions as established in prior case law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant was not entitled to withhold the leave encashment amount as a retiral benefit under Rule 25.13, and the respondent was not entit....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.