$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 18261/2025 & CM APPLs. 75555/2025, 5234/2026 SUBODH CHANDRA SAHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N.C. Gupta and Mr. R.

Vasujevan, Advocates.

versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kittu Bajaj, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026

1. This writ petition seeks a direction to the Respondents to sanction compassionate allowance in favour of the Petitioner under Regulation 31 of the Punjab National Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, along with interest from the date of cessation of his service.

2. The Petitioner joined Punjab National Bank/Respondent No. 1 on 25^th June, 1979 as a clerical cadre employee. He was promoted from time to time and served as a Manager from 2^nd May, 2008 to 27^th November, 2010 at the Bank’s Rupahihat Branch, after which he was transferred to the Tinsukia Branch. While serving at the Tinsukia Branch, a charge-sheet was issued to the Petitioner, culminating in a departmental inquiry and an inquiry report holding the charges proved, ultimately leading to the penalty of removal from service. After exhausting departmental remedies, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court, challenging the order of removal. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the penalty. Aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No. 313/2019.

3. In the said appeal, the Petitioner confined his challenge to retiral benefits. The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court remanded the matter to the Single Judge for consideration of the limited issue as to whether, notwithstanding the penalty of removal, the Petitioner would be entitled to superannuation benefits such as pension, leave encashment, and gratuity. Upon remand, the Single Judge, by judgment dated 16^th July, 2025, came to the following conclusion:

“31. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of S. K. Kool(supra), would not stand attracted to the issue arising in the present writ petition. Likewise, the other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner which follows the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Kool (supra); would also have not any application to the facts involved in the present writ petition.

32. In view of the above conclusions drawn by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, on being imposed with the penalty of removal from service, vide the order, dated 05-09-2013, it is the provisions of Regulation 22 that would now hold the field and in terms, thereof, the imposition of penalty having the effect of forfeiture of the past services rendered by the employee concerned; the petitioner, herein, would not be entitled to any pension, and/or, pensionary benefits. However, the gratuity amount already paid to the petitioner, in pursuance of the directions passed by this Court in the present proceeding, would not mandate a recovery.

33. The petitioner, herein, in the present proceeding, having also made a prayer for being authorized, the leave encashment; this Court clarifies that the petitioner, on being imposed with the penalty of removal from service, his past service having been forfeited; he would not be entitled to be authorized, the leave encashment benefits.

34. At this stage, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1995, has to be construed in the light of the provisions of regulations 42 and 43, thereof, is required to be examined.

35. On a close examination of the provisions of regulation 42, it is seen that the same mandates that an employee who has been authorized pension; the continuation of payment of such pension, would be dependent on his good conduct, in future. The situation envisaged in regulation 42, would have no application to the facts involved in t