$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13426/2019 & CM APPL. 70298/2024 HARI OM SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma & Mr. Aditya Dikshit, Advocates with Petitioner in person.

versus BANK OF BARODA (THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR) & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Mr. Lovelesh Kukreja & Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocates for R-1 to R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026

1. The Petitioner joined the services of the Respondent Bank on 14^th December, 1977. During his service, criminal proceedings were initiated against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation, which remain pending. Thereafter, the Respondent issued a memorandum/charge sheet dated 16^th April, 2016. A departmental enquiry was conducted in which the charges were held proved, and by order dated 3^rd May, 2017 the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement.

2. The present writ petition does not assail the order of compulsory retirement. The Petitioner’s grievance is confined to communications dated 10^th October, 2018 and 18^th January, 2019 whereby the Respondent Bank reduced the Petitioner’s pension by one-third.

3. It is also noted that this is the second round of litigation initiated by the Petitioner on the issue of pension. In the earlier proceedings, being W.P.(C) 8062/2019, this Court by order dated 26^th July, 2019, directed the Respondent Bank to decide the Petitioner’s representation dated 19^th June, 2019. The representation was rejected by communication dated 22^nd August, 2019, reiterating the decision to reduce the pension, which rejection is also impugned herein.

4. The record indicates that the reduction in pension is founded on a Board Resolution dated 13^th September, 2017 approving payment of compulsory retirement pension at the reduced rate. However, it is the Petitioner’s case that he became aware of the said Resolution only on 8 July 2022 upon its disclosure in the Respondents’ status report. Accordingly, the Petitioner has filed an application, being CM APPL. 70298/2024, seeking amendment of the petition to challenge the aforesaid Resolution and to introduce a ground of violation of principles of natural justice, by placing reliance on Anil Malhotra v. Bank of Baroda & Ors., in W.P.(C) 904/2021 decided on 8^th December 2022.

5. Relying on Anil Malhotra., it is argued that the impugned communications are vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the decision to reduce pension was taken. It is argued that even though Regulation 33 of the 1995 Regulations does not expressly prescribe a procedure, this Court in Anil Malhotra held that the principles of natural justice must be read into the provision and that the affected employee must be informed of the proposed action and reasons before any part of the pension is withheld. Basis this, the Board Resolution dated 13^th September, 2017 is liable to be set aside.

6. On merits, it is submitted that the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner are still pending and, in the absence of any final adjudication, there was no justification for reduction of pension. Further, it is argued that although the Petitioner’s representation was decided pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) 8062/2019, the decision was not taken by the competent authority. As per the regulations, the Board itself was required to consider the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing. The rejection dated 22^nd August 2019 is therefore legally unsustainable. As regards the objection of delay and laches, it is submitted that the issue concerns a continuing wrong relating to retiral benefits and the Supreme Court has consistently adopted a liberal approach in such cases. 7. Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Petitioner was aware of the Board Resolution of 2017 and cannot now be permitted to challenge it after considerabl