JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. Both the writ petitions have been filed seeking relief of grant of Leave Encashment and raise a legal issue of entitlement of an employee of a bank to Leave Encashment on compulsory retirement, imposed as a penalty. Due to the similitude of the legal issue in both the writ petitions they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

2. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 11146/2019 joined the erstwhile Dena Bank as a Stenographer on 14.02.1984 and at the time of his retirement in October, 2016 he was working in the capacity of AGM. Pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner, Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on 05.07.2018 and the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty.

3. Petitioner made several requests to the erstwhile Dena Bank for release of his retirement benefits including Leave Encashment. Not getting any favourable response, Petitioner filed a writ petition in September, 2018 being W.P.(C) 9638/2018 for release of leave encashment. Since Dena Bank had amalgamated in Bank of Baroda in January, 2019, the writ petition was withdrawn and a fresh petition was filed in May, 2019.

4. Vide order dated 06.09.2019, Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Respondent to decide the claim of the Petitioner within four weeks. Respondent rejected the claim of the Petitioner on 03.10.2019, on the ground that there were no approved guidelines for payment of Leave Encashment in the Bank of Baroda and it has no obligation under the terms of Scheme of Amalgamation, to grant any service benefits to employees retired prior to 01.04.2019.

5. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 11148/2019 joined the services of the erstwhile Dena Bank on 24.10.1983 and at the time of his retirement in March, 2017 he was working as a DGM. On 12.02.2018, Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement pursuant to a chargesheet issued on 17.03.2017. Appeal filed against the penalty order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

6. In September, 2018 Petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 9583/2018, seeking release of Leave Encashment, which was withdrawn on account of the amalgamation of Dena Bank in Bank of Baroda.

7. Subsequently, writ petition being W.P.(C) 5112/2019 was filed, which was disposed on 06.06.2019 directing the Respondent Bank to decide the claim of the Petitioner within four weeks. Vide order dated 03.10.2019 Respondent/Bank rejected the claim of the Petitioner on the same ground as in W.P.(C) 11146/2019, aforementioned.

8. The seminal question that arises in the present writ petitions is the entitlement of a compulsorily retired employee of a Bank to the benefit of Leave Encashment.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Regulation 38 of Bank of Baroda Officers Service Regulation, 1979 is pari-materia with Regulation 38 of Punjab National Bank Officers Service Regulation, 1979 and Regulation 38 of Dena Bank Officers Service Regulation, 1979. Regulation 38 provides that all leaves to the credit of an officer shall lapse on resignation, retirement, death, dismissal or termination for any reason. However, Proviso to the Regulation provides that where an officer retires from Bank services, 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. Reliance is also placed on Circular dated 11.05.2015, issued by the Indian Banks’ Association and Circular dated 01.06.2015 by the Bank of Baroda, wherein it is stipulated that compulsory retired employees will be entitled to leave encashment even if the same is imposed as a penalty.

10. It is argued that this issue is no longer res integra. In UCO Bank and Others v. Anju Mathur, 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 5014, Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court has, interpreting the Proviso to Regulation 38, held that irrespective of the manner in which the officer retires