JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

Prayer

(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 04.10.1996 and 11.06.1997 (Annexures P10 & P11) vide which the pension and retiral benefits have been denied to the petitioner. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.2,37,540/- deducted from the provident fund dues payable to the petitioner as mentioned in the letter dated 26.10.1998 (Annexure P6), besides other pensioner dues along with interest @ 18% p.a.

Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner

(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the deceased, namely, Ujagar Singh had unfortunately passed away during the pendency of the present petition on 14.03.2017, leaving behind his wife, Smt.Amar Kaur and two sons, namely, Sushil Kumar and Ashwani Kumar as the legal heirs and thereafter, even one of his LRs, namely, Ashwani Kumar died on 24.12.2018 and now the matter is being pursued by the wife of Ashwani Kumar, namely, Mrs. Beenu who is daughter-in-law of the original petitioner, Ujagar Singh Saini as is evident from CM-6750-CWP-2019.

(3). It is submitted that petitioner, Ujagar Singh Saini (since deceased) after nearly twenty two years of service with the respondent Bank as Junior Management Officer Grade Scale-I, was removed from service vide order dated 15.07.1994 (Annexure P1) passed by the Chief General Manager on the ground of allegation of embezzlement and tampering with the Bank’s record. It is further submitted that the disciplinary proceedings culminated in the penalty of “removal from service” under Regulation 67(g) of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 (in short, the 1979 Regulations), which is statutorily distinct from “dismissal”, yet the Bank has, for pensionary purposes, unlawfully treated the petitioner as if he were a dismissed officer and invoked a rule that “no superannuation pension is admissible to dismissed officers”, even though no penalty of dismissal was imposed on the petitioner.

(4). Learned counsel urged that the petitioner was informed that only about Rs.18,893/- of provident fund was payable, while a substantial sum of Rs.2,56,433/- stood in a sundry deposit account, the break-up of which included amounts deposited towards vehicle loan, house building loan, sums received from another branch, and old dues, was disclosed only after persistent demand and even then without a fair and timely settlement of his PF, gratuity and leave encashment.

(5). He then averred that the State Bank of Patiala (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (in short, the 1995 Regulations) were notified for employees who were in service on or after 01.01.1986 and had retired on or after 01.11.1993 but before the notified date, subject to exercising an option. Initially, by letter dated 22.09.1994, the petitioner was informed he was not eligible to opt for pension, but subsequently, in view of a circular, his option was entertained and was advised to complete formalities vide letter dated 26.03.1995 (Annexure P-8); he submitted the required information by letter dated 06.05.1996 (Annexure P-9) and repeatedly requested release of pension. The Bank then stated that no superannuation pension is admissible to “dismissed officers”; the petitioner immediately replied on 25.10.1996 (Annexure P-11) that he was not “dismissed” but “removed” under Regulation 67(g) of the 1979 Regulations and, therefore, entitled to superannuation benefits and against such an action, the petitioner got served a legal notice dated 02.11.1996 but without any response.

(6). Mr. Inderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner vehemently contended that “removal from service” under Regulation 67(g) of the 1979 Regulations cannot be treated as synonymous with “dismissal” for denying pension in view of the fact that the petitioner had completed qualifying service and was allowed