- Those retired Specialist Officers of Bank of Baroda, who were party to the petitions / appeals, will have to be given benefit of the judgments
- However, it is not certain whether the Banks will part with such benefits to other similarly situated Officers of all the Banks.
- Anyhow, at present, those retired / retiring Officers should submit Representations to their Banks' MD & CEO citing these judgments of the Supreme Court. The representations should be sent by Registered or Speed Post AD.
- Then they should wait for a couple of months to see whether the Indian Banks' Association gives instruction to all the Public Sector Banks to part with the benefit of the judgments to all the similar retired Specialist Officers.
- If no such positive decision is taken by the Indian Banks' Association, the concerned Pensioners should file Writ Petitions in their respective High Courts. The Courts, at the stage of single judge, will certainly award judgments in favor of the concerned Officers. The Banks' appeals, even if filed, before the Division Benches of the High Courts or the Supreme Courts will not be heard thereafter.
Goutam Nandi Vs. United Bank of India
and Ors. - Court Judgment
Kolkata High Court
United Bank of India and Ors.
.....the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to act in
accordance with law and to release the leave encashment of 240
days with interest for delayed payment which the petitioner
entitled of bank rate of 11.5% per annum. (b) a rule in the nature
of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay interest amounting
to rs.1,87,560.80p on gratuity amount for delayed payment at bank’s
rate of 11.5% per annum for 1410 days. (c) a rule in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the 2nd option
of the writ petitioner for availment of pension as per bank’s pension
regulation/circular and release the pension with interest at bank’s rate.
(2) when the petitioner was a scale-ii officer of the respondent bank,
he was issued a charge-sheet. a domestic enquiry followed. he.....
Original Side WP585of 2014 Goutam Nandi -Vs.United Bank of
India & ORS.Before : The Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee For the petitioner : Mr.M.R.
11.11.2016 17.11.2016, 24.11.2016 CAV On : 01.12.2016 Judgment
On : 13.04.2017 Arijit Banerjee, J.: (1) In this writ application
the petitioner, an erstwhile employee of the respondent Bank,
claims the following reliefs: (a) A Rule in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the Respondents to act in accordance with law and
to release the Leave Encashment of 240 days with interest for
delayed payment which the petitioner entitled of Bank rate of
11.5% per annum.
to pay interest amounting to Rs.1,87,560.80p on Gratuity amount for
delayed payment at Bank’s rate of 11.5% per annum for 1410 days.
to consider the 2nd option of the Writ Petitioner for availment of Pension
as per Bank’s Pension Regulation/Circular and release the Pension
with interest at Bank’s rate.
Bank, he was issued a charge-sheet.
Authority was dismissed and the order of termination of his
service was confirmed by the Appellate Authority by an order
dated 2 January, 2008.
by filing WP120of 2008.
J., set aside the order of dismissal.
In view of the above settled principles of law I quash and set aside the
punishment against the petitioner by inflicting punishment other
than the punishment of ‘dismissal which shall ordinarily be
disqualification for future employment’ upon the petitioner in the
light of the above discussion.
hereinabove.” (3) The respondent filed an appeal against the order
of the learned Single Judge.
dismissed as not pressed by an order of the Division Bench dated
30 August, 2010.
the Bank had imposed the lesser punishment of compulsory retirement
on the petitioner in accordance with the Learned Single Judge’s order.
the petitioner’s claim is on three accounts.
consider his case for availing of pension as per the Bank’s Pension
Regulations/CirculaRs.I will deal with each issue separately.
released the Provident Fund and gratuity amounts to the petitioner
on 2 August, 2012.
fund amount but has not paid interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.
24 August, 2007 to 2 August, 2012 amounting to Rs.1,87,560/- as per
calculation shown in annexures P-18 and P-19 to the writ petition.
reasonable rate is payable for delay in releasing the gratuity amount
and other retiral benefits.
High Court in the case of Champaran Sugar Go.
He also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Devaki Nandan Prasad-Vs.-State of Bihar, AIR1983SC1184
(6) Learned Counsel then referred to Secs.
within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person
to whom the gratuity is payable.
paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-Section (3).
the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes
payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate,
not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time
to time for repayment of long term deposits, as that Government may,
by notification specify: Provided that no such interest shall be payable
if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the
employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority
for the delayed payment on this ground.” Reference was also made to Secs.
anything contained in Section 3, interest shall be payable in all cases
in which it is payable by virtue of any enactment or other rule of law
or usage having the force of law.
of the provisions of sub-Section (1).the Court shall, in each of the following
cases, allow interest from the date specified below to the date of institution
of the proceedings at such rate as the Court may consider reasonable,
unless the court is satisfied that there are special reasons why interest should
not be allowed, namely:(a) Where money or other property has been deposited
as security for the performance of an obligation imposed by law or contract,
from the date of deposit; (b) Where the obligation to pay money or restore
any property arises by virtue of a fiduciary relationship, from the date of the
cause of action:” (7) Learned Counsel for the respondent Bank strongly
disputed the petitioner’s entitlement to receive interest on gratuity.
interest on delayed payment of gratuity in the service regulations of the
respondent Bank unlike Secs.
Service Regulations, 1979, in resisting the petitioner’s claim.
of gratuity must succeed.
immediately upon his superannuation.
cannot be blamed, he is entitled to receive interest at a reasonable rate.
retiral dues on the date of attaining superannuation is a valuable right
which accrues in his favour on the date of his attaining superannuation.
the employer at its whim.
to pay interest to the retired employee.
by this Court by its judgment and order dated 24 February, 2010.
as not pressed by the Appeal Court’s order dated 30 August, 2010.
petitioner was thus found to be unsustainable in law.
gratuity of the petitioner.
Court, the respondent Bank passed an order dated 11 August, 2010
compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 24 August, 2007.
the petitioner stood severed notionally from 24 August, 2007.
from that date.
learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Court observed that under Sec.
employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered
continuous service for not less than five yeaRs.on his superannuation or
on his retirement or resignation or on his death or disablement due to
accident or disease.
payable to him and it becomes so payable on the very date of his superannuation
or retirement or resignation or death or disablement as the case may be.
with interest for the delay in payment caused by the default of the employer.
recover the gratuity with compound interest at the rate of 9 per cent per
annum by issuance of a certificate recoverable as arrears of land revenue
by the Collector.
on any express claim made by the employee for such interest.
recognized the retired employee’s right to receive interest on delayed
payment of pensionary benefits.
reads as follows:“46.
(b) Death (c) Disablement rendering him unfit for further service as certified
by a medical officer approved by the Bank; (d) Resignation after completing
ten years of continuous service; or (e) Termination of service in any other way
except by way of punishment after completion of 10 years of service;”
The punishment of dismissal that was imposed by the Bank on the petitioner
was found by this Court to be unsustainable in law.
the petitioner was compulsorily retired.
amount in favour of the petitioner.
way of paying the gratuity benefit to the petitioner.
in the fiRs.place, he would have been entitled to receive the gratuity amount
on the date of termination of his service.
of the petitioner by the Bank which was found to be legally unsustainable.
interest on delayed payment of gratuity by way of compensation.
payment of gratuity is allowed.
that in spite of repeated representations made to the Bank for releasing leave
encashment, the Bank remained silent.
written by the petitioner to the Bank.
respondent Bank bearing No.PD/DIR/16/2003 dated 11 June, 2003 which
is reproduced hereunder:“ UNITED BANK OF INDIA DISCIPLINARY
& INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION HEAD OFFICE : KOLKATA
Circular Letter No.PD/DIR/16/2003 2003 11 th.
Benefits Of the Officer Employees and Award Staff Inflicted with the
punishment/on case of Their retirement etc.Attention of all concerned
is hereby invited to this office earlier Circular Letter No.PD/DICS/08/89
dated 20-05-1999 wherein it has been mentioned under Clause – 1 that on
compulsory retirement of officers by way of punishment, no encashment of
leave would be admissible as leave lapses in terms of Regulation 38 of
United Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulation 1979.
of compulsory retirement by way of punishment in the United Bank of
India (Officers’) Service Regulation 1979, the matter was referred to Indian
under their letter dated 14- 06-1997 that on officer who has been compulsorily
retired would be eligible to receive benefits as available to the officers who
retired from service after reaching the date of superannuation.
officers who have been awarded punishment of compulsory Retirement from service.
Association, the leave encashment benefits would also be admissible to
the officers who have been awarded punishment of Compulsory Retirement
at par with those officers who retire from service after reaching
also relied on a circular dated 11 May, 2015 issued by the Indian Banks’
Association pertaining to encashment of leave on compulsory retirement,
the relevant portion whereof reads as follows:“Based on the various
representations received from banks in the matter, quoting the court’s
decision and Government of India decision, the HR Committee at its
meeting held on 6.4.2015 discussed the issue and was of the view that the
officers/employees in Public Sector Banks may be permitted for encashment
of privilege leave to their credit on compulsory retirement in view of the
similar provisions in SBI/Government of India.
held on April 30, 2015.
of the HR Committee and decided to permit encashment of PL for compulsory
retired employees/officeRs.Member banks may kindly note the above decision
of the HR Committee/Managing Committee of IBA and be guided accordingly.
of the Managing Committee, i.e.April 30, 2015.” (14) Learned Counsel has relied
on as many as ten decisions of various High Courts and the Apex Court in
support of his submission that an employee who is compulsorily retired is
entitled to leave encashment.
(Delhi High Court Division Bench) – Judgment dated 18 September, 2013
delivered in LPA693of 2013.
Judgment dated 4 September, 2013 delivered in CWP No.16416 of 2011.
Judgment dated 22 March, 2012 delivered in WP No.9069 of 2011.
Court Division Bench) – Judgment dated 8 August, 2013 delivered in WA No.905 of 2012.
Judgment dated 13 July, 2011 delivered in LPA No.1147 of 2011.
Judgement dated 25 July, 2012 delivered in WP No.27311 of 2010.
Judgment dated 3 April, 2012 delivered in WP No.1562 of 2010.
Judgment dated 16 July, 2015 delivered in CWP No.4816 of 2012 –
Upheld by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court.
Judgment dated 8 September, 2016 delivered in MAT698of 2016.
Judgment dated 7 March, 2013 delivered in LPA No.566 of 2012.
United Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations, 1976 and submitted that punishment of compulsory
retirement is a major penalty.
issued by the Indian Banks’ Association which, inter alia, stated that
an officer whose services are terminated or is compulsory retired as a
punishment as per Regulation 4 of the Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations will not be entitled to leave encashment on retirement.
claim leave encashment benefits on the basis of the respondent Bank’s
circular dated 11 June, 2003 as the said circular was issued inadvertently
overlooking the provisions of Regulation 38 of the UBI Officers’ Service
Regulation 1979 read with the Indian Banks’ Association circular dated
27 November, 2000.
issued by the respondent Bank, inter alia, to the effect that an officer
who has been discharged, dismissed or terminated or has been compulsory
retired after imposition of punishment as per Regulation 4 of the United
Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations
1976 will not be entitled for leave encashment.
delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in APO284of 2012 (Punjab
National Bank-vs.Jyotirmay Roy) wherein it was held that a compulsory
retirement cannot be equated with ordinary retirement and thus a
compulsorily retired officer is not entitled to the benefit of leave encashment.
of this Court in the case of Bank of India-vs.-Sr.Sribrata Deb (supra) agreed
with the view of the Delhi High Court in Deepak Sapra (supra) and although
the Special Leave Petition against the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Deepak
Sapra (supra) has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has kept the question of law open.
Benches of this Court, the issue should be referred to a Larger Bench.
1979 reads as follows:“R.38.
resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal or termination for any
reason whatsoever; Provided that where an officer retires from the Bank’s
service in terms of Regulation 19 of these Regulations or seeks voluntary
retirement on or after 1st November, 1993 in terms of United Bank of India
(Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 he shall be eligible to be paid a sum
equivalent to the emoluments of any period not exceeding 240 days of
privilege leave that he had accumulated; Provided further than where an
officer dies while in service there shall be payable to his legal representative
sums which would have been payable for the period not exceeding 240 days
of privilege leave to his credit as on the date of his death.” (17) This Rule
pertaining to the entitlement of Bank Officers to leave encashment is the
same or substantially similar in case of most of the Nationalized Banks.
Bank contended by placing reliance on
- admin [at] legalcrystal [dot] com
- Bengaluru, Karnataka, Bharata