An employee removed from service is entitled to pension and terminal benefits if eligible under the rules, despite conflicting provisions in the Bipartite Settlement.

JUDGMENT :

(SUMAN SHYAM, J.)

Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Soren, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the UCO Bank appearing in this case for all the respondents.

2. In this writ petition, a prayer has been made by the writ petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus upon the respondent bank for releasing his retiral (terminal) benefits pursuant to removal from service by the order dated 04.03.2008 issued by the Bank. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the writ petitioner herein was initially appointed as a Clerk in the UCO Bank on 16.05.1978. Thereafter, he was promoted to the rank of Junior Management Grade Scale-I and then to the Middle Management Grade Scale-II officer rank. While discharging his services as above, the authorities had initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner which had culminated in the order dated 04.03.2008 whereby, an order of “removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment” was issued to him. That apart, punishment of reduction to lower Grade i.e. from Scale –II to Scale-I at a basic pay of Rs.13820/- for a period of 3 years was also imposed upon the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 04.03.2008, the petitioner had instituted WP(C) No.1723/2009 before this Court which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 06.08.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge. The said order has attained finality in the eyes of law.

3. According to the writ petitioner, after the dismissal of WP(C) No.1723/2009 he was entitled to receive pensionary benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment and other terminal benefits which were not paid to him by the Bank despite repeated representations submitted by the petitioner. Situated thus, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court once again by filing the present writ petition.

4. By referring to the documents available on record, Mr. Konwar, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner has argued that it is the undisputed position of fact that the writ petitioner had made his contribution provident fund. Therefore, the writ petitioner was entitled not only to receive the provident fund dues but also his gratuity and leave encashment which have not been paid to him by the Bank till date for no valid reason.

5. By referring to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bank of Baroda vs. S. K. Kool (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Another reported in (2014) 2 SCC 715 as well as the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank and Another Vs. Vijay Kumar Handa reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 714 Mr. Konwar has argued that by interpreting Clause-22 of the Bipartite Settlement of the UCO Bank the Hon’ble Supreme Court has conclusively held that a mere order of removal from service would not disentitle the employee from pension if he is otherwise eligible under the Rules to receive the same. Since, the petitioner is entitled to receive pension under the Rules, hence, submits Mr. Konwar, a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent Bank to release the amount of pension and other terminal benefits tothe petitioner with interest at the rate of 9% per annum so as to redress the grievance of his client.

6. Responding to the above submission, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Bank has argued that Clause-22 of the Bipartite Settlement signed by the Indian Banks’ Association and the Banks’ Workmens’ Union does not permit payment of pension to an employee who has been served with an order of removal from service. According to Mr. Sharma, that is the reason why no pension has been paid to the petitioner. In so far as the claim for payment of gratuity, leave encashment and other terminal benefits payable to the petitioner is concerned, Mr. Sharma has argued that since there was delay on the part of the writ petitioner to furnish the