HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ****

Ram Chander Yadav & Ors. ... Petitioners VS.

Punjab National Bank & Anr. ... Respondents ****

CWP-19844-2021 (O&M)

****

Danbir Singh Bainola ... Petitioner VS.

Punjab National Bank & Anr. ... Respondents ****

1. Judgment reserved on 12.01.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 11.03.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 14.03.2026

4. Whether operative or full judgment Full 5. Delay in pronouncement of full judgment and reasons, if any NA ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate for petitioner (CWP-29008-2019)

Petitioner in person (CWP-19844-2021)

Ms. Preeti Grover, Advocate for Mr. Saurav Verma, Advocate for the respondents ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). By this order, I shall dispose of the above-cited two writ petitions involving identical questions for adjudication by this Court. For the sake of order, CWP-29008-2019 is treated as the lead case.

(2). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned communication dated 18.07.2019 (Annexure P8), 11.02.2019 (Annexure P7), 27.12.2018 (Annexure P6) and 12.12.2017 (Annexure P5) qua the petitioners vide which the respondent-Bank has declined their claim for grant of pension on the basis of average emoluments drawn during the previous 10 months. They further seek a direction to the respondents to grant them pension by counting the service rendered by them in the Gramin Banks sponsored by the respondent-Bank.

(3). The petitioners herein have all retired from the services of the respondent-Banks on attaining the age of superannuation and as such, they are in receipt of all the retiral dues including pension and commutation of pension etc. However, their grievance is that the determination of their pension has not been done in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (in short, the 1995 Regulations) which provide for determination of pension as 50% of the average emoluments which is the pay drawn by an employee during the last

10 months.

(4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were working in the Punjab National Bank from where they were deputed to the Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) which are sponsored by the respondent- Bank for some period and thereafter were transferred back to the parent organization i.e. the respondent-Bank from where they retired from service w.e.f. 30.09.2012 as DGM. For the purpose of illustration, the basic pay of the petitioner No.1 eligible for provident fund deduction was Rs.477530/- payable as per the last 10 months’ basic pay of Rs.23876/-, however, the pension has been fixed at Rs.21802/- instead of Rs.23876/-. Similar was the case with the other petitioners who raised their issue through various representations including dated 12.11.2019 but the respondents have declined their request by passing the impugned orders.

(5). It is argued that as per Regulation 35(i)&(ii) of the 1995 Pension Regulations, the amount of pension is required to be calculated for an employee after completing a qualifying service and the amount of the basic pension shall be calculated at 50% of the average emoluments. He submits that as per Regulation 2(d) of the said Regulations, the average emoluments has been defined to mean the average of the pay drawn by an employee during the last 10 months of his service in the bank and the period of 10 months for average emoluments is to be determined as the period of the preceding 10 months for the purpose of average emoluments which shall be reckoned from the date of retirement as provided under Regulation 38 of the said Regulations.

(6). Learned counsel then contends that the present petitioners are entitled for calculation and grant of their pension w.e.f. the due date of their retirements by taking into account the actual pay drawn by them during the last 10 months of their ret