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 reversal of the IBA Circular. The judgment in rem principle applied, and delay and laches did not bar the petition.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"i., direct the respondent bank to pay the leave encashment to petitioner with regard to 240 days privilege leave available to petitioner leave account along with interest @ 10% p.a., for the delayed period from the date of compulsory retirement to the date of actual payment.

ii. Impose exemplary cost and compensation upon respondent bank for undue harassment to the petitioner.

iii. pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

2. Facts to the extent relevant for deciding the present writ petition are that Petitioner was employed as a Manager with the Respondent Bank at the relevant time, when a charge sheet dated 07.05.2007 was issued against him, leading to initiation of a departmental inquiry which culminated into punishment of 'Compulsory Retirement' by an order dated 26.05.2008 under Regulation 4(h) of the Canara Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations, 1976").

3. The grievance of the Petitioner, as articulated by his counsel, is limited to the grant of leave encashment for 240 days earned leave available to his credit. Petitioner is stated to have made several representations including the last one on 26.09.2015 but to no avail, which compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court.

4. It is the contention of the Petitioner that his claim to leave encashment has its genesis in Regulation 38 of Canara Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 ('Regulations, 1979') and he cannot be deprived of the said benefit, even though he has suffered the penalty of compulsory retirement. Regulation 38 provides that all leave to the credit of an employee shall lapse on resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal or termination for any reason, save as provided below in the various Provisos and the first Proviso stipulates that where an Officer retires from Bank's service, he shall be eligible to be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments of any period not exceeding 240 days of privileged leave that he had accumulated. The contention is that the word 'retires' will mean and include 'compulsory retirement', even by way of punishment, pursuant to a disciplinary inquiry.

5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in UCO Bank and Others v. Anju Mathur, 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 5014, wherein the Court has interpreted the Proviso to Regulation 38 and held that irrespective of the manner in which the Officer retires, he is eligible for leave encashment. It is stated that a Division Bench of this Court in Deepak Sapra vs. Punjab National Bank, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3724 , has echoed that Officers compulsorily retired from the Bank's service even by way of penalty, will be entitled to benefits of leave encashment. This judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.35937/2013, which was dismissed on 25.08.2015. It is, therefore, the case of the Petitioner that the relief claimed by him is covered on all four corners by the aforementioned judgments and there is no impediment in release of leave encashment benefits to him.

6. The next plank of the argument of the Petitioner is that initially, the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) had, vide Circular dated 27.11.2000, advised all Nationalised Banks that an officer whose services are terminated or who is compulsory retired as a punishment under Regulation 4 of Regulations, 1976, will not be entitled for leave encashment. However, subsequently the IBA by another Circular dated 11.05.2015 communicated that upon various representations received in the matter, the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 30.04.2015 decided that leave encashment will be payable to compulsorily retired employees/officers. Therefore, in view of Circular dated 11.05.2015, whereby the earlier dec