Removal from service does not automatically forfeit pensionary benefits if the employee meets the qualifying service, emphasizing a harmonious interpretation of disciplinary and pension regulations.

Judgment :

Arun Dev Choudhury, J.

1. The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.06.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6360/2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed, and the appellant bank was directed to release the retirement (terminal) benefits to the writ petitioner.

2. The brief facts are that the respondent was initially appointed as a Clerk at UCO Bank in 1971 and he was subsequently promoted to the Officer cadre.

3. In 2008, pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding, the respondent was removed from service by order dated 28.03.2008. Initially, he approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 4798/2008 and the same was disposed of on 07.08.2015, directing the appellate authority to pass a reasoned order. Accordingly, the appellate authority modified the punishment to “removal from service” (without disqualification for future employment).

4. Against such modified order, WP(C) No. 6360/2016 was filed challenging the penalties and claiming retirement benefits. Learned counsel for the respondent placing reliance on the order dated 01.05.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 5939/2014 by the learned Singe Judge, argued that the removal from service did not automatically disentitle the respondent from receiving the superannuation benefits, otherwise due under the extant service regulations and settlements.

5. The bank resisted the writ petition primarily on the ground that, under Regulation 22 of the UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation, 1995), removal from service entitles forfeiture of past service and, consequently, disqualification from pension.

6. It was contended that once the respondent was removed from service, his entire past service stood forfeited and he was not entitled to the pensionary benefits.

7. The learned Single Judge, relying on Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement and Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995, and also placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. S. K. Kool (dead) through Legal Representatives and Another reported in [ (2014) 2 SCC 715 ] and the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank and Another Vs. Vijay Kumar Handa (decided on 03.04.2025) and also the decision of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) No. 5939/2014, held that the writ petitioner therein was entitled to superannuation benefits and accordingly, allowed the aforesaid writ petition.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the bank has preferred the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995, clearly provides that removal from service entitles forfeiture of the entire past service and disqualifies the employee from pension.

10. It is contended that the statutory regulations must prevail and that the learned Single Judge erred in applying the ratios of S.K.Kool (supra), and Vijay Kumar Handa (supra), without appreciating that Clause 22 of the Regulation, 1995 disentitles an employee removed from service for claiming the pensionary benefits.

11. An additional contention has been raised by the appellants that the respondent, at the time of his removal from service, was serving in the Officer cadre and not as a workman. It is therefore argued that the Bipartite Settlement entered into between the Indian Banks’ Association and the Banks’ Workmen’s Union is not applicable to him. On that basis, it is contended that Clause 6(b) of the Bi