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

Krishan Lal Gupta ... Petitioner VS.

Chief General Manager, Local Head Office, State Bank of India ... Respondent ****

1. Judgment reserved on 08.10.2025 2. Judgment pronounced on 02.12.2025 3. Judgment uploaded on 03.12.2025

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. KK Korla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the respondent ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the earned leave encashment to the petitioner with penal interest.

(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at the time of his retirement, the petitioner had to his credit 219 days of earned leave, the encashment value of which has been computed to Rs.4,27,452, however, notwithstanding his entitlement to this amount, the respondent-Bank, vide its order dated 05.05.2012 (Annexure P2) has withheld payment of earned leave encashment to the Petitioner.

(3). It is submitted that the withholding of such payment is wholly unjustified and without the authority of law as the petitioner was not charged with any acts of financial irregularity nor subjected to any criminal proceedings nor there was any allegation or proof of misconduct involving moral turpitude, nor there was any offense established against him in any court of law. He submits that there was no order directing any recovery of dues from the petitioner and as such, in the absence of these conditions, the respondent-bank is not vested with the right to withhold the terminal benefit of leave encashment which the petitioner has lawfully earned as a result of unutilized leave during the course of service.

(4). Furthermore, it is a settled principle, as affirmed by judicial precedents, that leave encashment constitutes an integral part of salary and is treated as deferred wages for services already rendered. Reliance is placed on Division Bench judgment of this Court in UCO Bank & Others vs. Anju Mathur (LPA No. 566 of 2012), decided on 7th March 2013, wherein it has been held that an employee who retires, irrespective of manner, is eligible for leave encashment. Similarly, the Delhi High Court, in AK Tandon vs. Central Bank of India (WP(C) 359/2016), decided on 6 November 2017, reiterated that leave encashment cannot be denied except in cases where explicit liability is established as per law.

(5). On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent Bank emphatically contends that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the petitioner’s suppression of material facts regarding filing of earlier writ petition i.e. CWP No. 22420 of 2013, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.02.2016 (Annexure R1) with liberty to pursue alternate remedies. The Petitioner slept over the matter for a period of about three years before filing the present petition, without disclosure of the previous round of litigation, rendering the claim barred by limitation and delay. The Petitioner seeks to raise a stale claim, particularly in light of the merger of the erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur into the State Bank of India.

(6). Mr. Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel, on the basis of the averments made in the written statement dated 21.11.2020 urged that in fact, the petitioner was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure R2) under Regulation No. 67 of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers’) Service Regulation, 1979 for causing gross losses to the Bank and as per Bank’s Circular dated 25.08.2003 and the relevant Service Regulations, the officers terminated by way of dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement, as a punishment, under Regulation No. 67 are not entitled to leave encashment.

(7