The entitlement to compassionate allowance under Regulation 31 of the United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995 is determined based on the employee's conduct, and proven misconduct or dishonesty may disqualify the employee from receiving such allowance.

JUDGMENT

Krishna Rao, J. - The instant writ application is directed against the order passed by the assistant General Manager (D & IR), United Bank of India, Head Office, 11, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata dt. 28.03.2019 wherein the request of the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance is rejected.

Initially the petitioner was appointed in the clerical cadre in the year 1981 and was posted as Cash Cleck. In the year 2004 the petitioner was selected as Computer Operator in the sanctioned post in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dt. 29th, October, 1993. On completion of unblemished 25 years of service, the petitioner was awarded with Silver Jubilee award.

In the year 2007, the respondent bank noticed about unusual transactions from the account of the petitioner and with the Over Darft account maintained in the bank. On 1st November, 2007, the bank had issued notice to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to clarify about the unusual transactions. Though the petitioner had submitted his clarification but the bank was not satisfied with the same and accordingly the petitioner was transfered from Kulpi Branch to Malda Region. The Bank had also initiated disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner by issuance of chargesheet dt. 7th July, 2008. On completion of enquiry, the disciplinary authority had passed an order of penalty of Dismissal without Notice in terms of Clause 6 (a) of the Memorandum of Settlement.

after the dismissal of the petitioner from service, the petitioner had made representation for release of his pensionary benefits but the same was rejected on the ground of dismissal from service without notice under Clause 6 (a) of the Bipartite Settlement dt. 10th april, 2002. Thereafter the petitioner had made an application on 11th July, 2018 to the respondent Bank praying for grant of Compassionate allowance with effect from 1st June, 2009 in terms of Clause (1) and (2) of the Regulation 31 of the United Bank of India ( Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995.

as the request made by the petitioner for grant of Compassionate allowance was not considered and was pending before the bank and accordingly the petitioner had preferred a writ application before this Court being WP No. 20498 (W) of 2018 and the coordinate bench of this Court had disposed of the said writ application on 21.12.2018 by directing the bank to take a reasoned decision within a period of eight weeks. after the order passed by the coordinate bench of this court the bank had passed the impugned order on 28.03.2019.

Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Ld. advocate representing the petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in its order dt. 18th January, 2018 held that petitioner did not cause any damage or loss or destruction of property belonging to the bank and the petitioner was dismissed from service without any financial implication and admittedly the bank has not sufferred any pecuniary loss. It is further submitted that under Regulation 31 of the United Bank of India Employees' Pension Regulation, 1995, the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate allowances.

The counsel for the petitioner further urged that the petioner had rendered 28 years of service and due to his unblemised service on completion of 25 years the petitioner was awarded with Silver Jubilee award. It is further argued that the petitioner is a senior citizen and belongs to Schedule Caste category and is facing financial hardship to maintain his family and is also suffering from various ailment.

Ld. Counsel for the petiitoner further submitted that as per Clause 45 (a) of the 11th Bipartite Settlement dt. 11.11.2020 Clause 5 (j), from the date of settlement shall be read as under:

' doing any act of gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss'

By referring the said clause the petitioner submitted that the bank has not sufferred any serious loss.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon clause 45 (g) of the 11th