$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4824/2025 Y.P. SETHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Dhawan and Mr. Mohit Miglani, Advocate with Petitioner in person. versus UNION BANK OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. O.P. Gaggar and Mr. Sachindra Karn, Advocates.

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 as a Clerk on 9^th July, 1971 and was promoted to the cadre of Officer with effect from 1^st October, 1984. In the year 1993, a memorandum of charges was issued to him and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 11^th February, 2000, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The Petitioner’s statutory appeal and review were rejected.

2. Aggrieved, the Petitioner instituted W.P.(C) 2167/2002. During its pendency, by interim order dated 21^st December, 2016, this Court directed reconsideration of the quantum of punishment, while recording concern that dismissal had the effect of wiping out retiral benefits earned across nearly three decades. The Bank thereafter passed an order dated 15^th April, 2017 maintaining the penalty of dismissal.

3. The writ petition was finally disposed of by judgment dated 2^nd September, 2024. The findings returned in the disciplinary proceedings were not disturbed. The Bank, however, was directed to revisit the quantum of punishment in the light of the observations recorded in the interim order dated 21^st December, 2016 and to pass a fresh reasoned order.

4. Pursuant to the above, the Bank passed an order dated 22^nd November, 2024 modifying the penalty from dismissal to compulsory retirement under Regulation 4(h) of the Union Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, with effect from the date from which the penalty was to operate.

The pension option and the dispute

5. In the meantime, the Indian Banks’ Association, by circular dated 16^th March, 2018, introduced a second option to join the pension scheme for compulsorily retired employees. The Respondent Bank adopted the arrangement through Staff Circular No. 7116 dated 4^th June, 2020 under the Union Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. The eligibility clause, to the extent relevant, reads:

“5. ELIGIBILITY

5.1 In terms of Settlement/Joint Note dated 27th April 2010, another option for joining the existing Pension Scheme is to be extended to Compulsorily Retired employees / officers, who:

(a) were in the service of the bank prior to 29th September 1995 and Compulsorily Retired from the service. of the bank on or before the date of the settlement i.e. 27.04.2010;

(b) exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer, to become a member of the Pension fund; and (c) refund within 30 days after expiry of the said period of 60 days, the entire amount of the Bank’s contribution to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon received by the employee/officer on compulsory retirement together with 56% of the said received amount as his/her share in contribution towards meeting the funding gap as per the said Settlement.”

6. Petitioner’s gravamen relates to the communication dated 9^th December, 2024, issued by Bank declining Petitioner’s request to exercise second option to join the pension scheme. The Petitioner contends that he satisfies the substantive eligibility criteria but has been unlawfully denied the benefit solely on the ground that the option was not exercised within the stipulated period of 60 days from the date of the offer.

Submissions

7. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that a rigid reading of clause 5.1(b) would lead to an untenable outcome. During the sixty-day window under the 2020 circular, the Petitioner stood dismissed and was outside the class for whom the second option was created. His eligibility arose only when the Bank, by order dated 22^nd November, 2024, substituted compulsory retirement for dismissal. Re