(2 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.02.2026 Union Bank of India and another ..Appellants Vs.

R.C. Rajput …Respondent LPA-905-2021 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 09.02.2026 Union Bank of India and another ..Appellants Vs.

R.K. Nuniwal …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Rajinder Paul, Advocate for Mr. B.B. Bagga, Advocate for the respondent.

***

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

CM-1050-LPA-2022 Delay of 17 days in filing the appeal has been satisfactorily explained.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay of 17 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

MAIN CASES.

1. The question in both these appeals is as to whether an employee who has compulsorily retired on account of proved misconduct would be entitled to leave encashment/privilege leave or not?

2. Learned Single Judge has examined the controversy relying upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.15766 of 2013, titled as D. Kalaichelvan vs. Union Bank of India, decided on 01.04.2015. The judgment of the Madras High Court in D. Kalaichelvan (supra) was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme and the SLP filed in the matter has also been dismissed.

3. Learned Single Judge has also taken note of a Full Bench decision of this Court in UCO Bank and others vs. Anju Mathur 2013 (3) SCT 272, wherein same controversy came up for determination before the Court. In para No.25 to 27, the Full Bench held as under:-

“25. At the outset, we are forced to remark that reasons given in Ashwani Kumar Sharma (supra) are not legally correct, as the compulsory retirement by way of punishment is also treated as ordinary termination of service on which we have already given our decision hereinabove.

26. We have also reproduced Regulation 38 of the Officers Regulations, which deals with leave encashment. This regulation states that leave shall lapse in certain circumstances. Proviso thereto, however, provides an explanation and makes a provision for leave encashment in those cases where an officer "retires" from service. The question is as to whether this retirement would mean retirement on attaining the age of superannuation or retirement caused by other modes as well, including compulsory retirement. It cannot be disputed that compulsory retirement occasioned otherwise than by way of penalty would be covered by the proviso and leave encashment would be admissible as in that eventuality also, the officer "retires" from service. However, unlike Regulation 46 of the Officers' Regulations, the cases where the retirement comes by way of penalty of compulsory retirement, are not excluded. Therefore, when an officer "retires" from service, in whatever manner, he is eligible for leave encashment. In the case of O.P. Garg (supra), this issue was specifically dealt with by this Court in the following manner:

"The petitioner in the present case had been wrongly denied encashment of leave through a careless mis- interpretation of Regulation 38 and without considering its proviso. From the Regulation 38 it would be revealed that all leave lapses on resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal or termination. What this means is that on the happening of any of the above events an officer cannot insist that he should be permitted to continue in service to the extent of leave which still stood to his credit. Since leave lapses, the concerned officer must leave service. Funnily leave of an officer who dies while in service also lapse. It seems the framers of regulation probably thought that a dead person may continue on leave till the expiry of the leave to his credit, unless a regulation was framed.

Be that as it may, it is the proviso to Regulation 38 which applies to the petitioner's case and has been actually discussed in Ashwani Kumar Sharma's case (supra). As regards payment of gratuity made to the petitioner of Rs. 2,17,351/- on Augus