$~164 &165 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 108/2018 ASHOK KUMAR SAWHNEY .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ankit Bhadoria, Mr. Umesh Singh, Advs. along with appellant versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Adv.

165 + LPA 354/2018 MOOL CHAND SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ankit Bhadoria, Mr. Umesh Singh, Advs. along with appellant versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Adv.

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R

% 23.02.2026 CM APPL. 55896/2024 & CM APPL. 21254/2025 in LPA 108/2018 CM APPL. 57475/2024 & CM APPL. 2558/2025 in LPA 354/2018

1. These applications have been filed by the appellants in LPA 108/2018 and LPA 354/2018, which were decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of a common judgment and order dated 16.05.2019. The operative portion of the said order dated 16.05.2019 reads as under:-

“11. Regulation 33(1) envisages two situations. The first is where an employee is compulsorily retired from service as a penalty on or after November 1993 in terms of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations. This is where, pursuant to a disciplinary inquiry, such a penalty is imposed upon the employee. The second scenario is that such compulsory retirement is brought about through a settlement by an authority "higher than the authority competent to impose such penalty". In such a case, the authority would be one higher than the competent authority. In either scenario, discretion is granted to impose a one-third deduction from the pension of the employee. This is only discretionary. Regulation 33 (1) uses the phrase may be granted' and not 'shall be granted' when referring to the applicability of the one-third deduction in the pension of an employee who has been compulsorily retired. In other words, the deduction of one-third of the employee's pension, if he is compulsorily retired, is not automatic.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

24. In any event, if the delegation of such power to the GM (PRS) is itself not valid in law the consultation with the Board of Directors becomes mandatory even in the case of Mr. Sawhney. As far as Mr. Sharma is concerned, there is no approval of the decision to cut his pension by 1/3rd by the Board of Directors. Therefore, in each of these appeals, the decision to reduce the pension by 1/3rd did require the prior sanction of the Board of Directors which was not obviously forthcoming. Consequently, in neither of the cases the reduction of pension by 1/3rd can be justified.

25. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in each of the appeals is hereby set aside. The appeals are allowed. A direction is issued to the Bank to pay to each Appellant on or before 1st July, 2019 the withheld sum of 1/3rd of pension from the date on which it became due failing which the bank will be liable to pay simple interest at 8% on the sum from 1st July, 2019 till the date of payment.”

2. A perusal of the operative portion of said judgment and order dated

16.05.2019 reveals that the LPAs filed by the appellants were allowed with the direction to the respondent/Bank to pay to each appellant, on or before 01.07.2019 the withheld sum of 1/3^rd of pension from the date on which the same became due, failing which, it was also observed that the respondent/Bank will be liable to pay simple interest at 8% on the sum from 01.07.2019 till the date of payment. The Court had also directed cost to be paid to the appellants which was quantified as Rs.20,000/- in each appeal also.

3. It is not in dispute that the cost as directed in the order dated 16.05.2019, has been paid. What is being contended by the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the entire arrears of 1/3^rd pension from the date it became due till 01.07.2019 has been paid and interest on this amount has also been paid, however, the interest accrued on the amount which became payable from 02.07.2019 till the date of i