DEEPAK SAPRA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE notice. Sh. Rajat Arora, Advocate accepts notice. With consent, the appeal is heard finally.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be aggrieved by an order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.07.2013 by which his claim for leave encashment benefit upon his compulsory retirement ­ imposed by the respondent bank as a penalty was directed to be withheld/forfeited. Both the parties had relied upon Regulation 38 of the Punjab National Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1979, [hereafter referred to as "the 1979 Regulations"], framed in terms of Section 19 (1) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 [hereafter referred to as "the 1970 Act"]. The bank had contended, by placing reliance upon the latter part of Regulation 38 that the compulsory retirement imposed as a penalty would disqualify an officer from leave encashment benefits.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant urges that the learned Single Judge fell into error in not noticing that the PNB's circular of 18.01.01 issued by the bank was not statutory and could not prevail over the regulations which were framed under Section 19(1) of the 1970 Act. It was submitted that the plain language of Regulation 38 of the 1979 Regulations made no distinction between the retiring or retired officers from one another. It was emphasized that the first proviso which enacted that if an officer retired from bank service he would be entitled to be paid leave encashment in terms of what is provided, cannot be distinguished, especially if the officer imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement is otherwise entitled to all pensionary and terminal benefits such as gratuity, contributory provident fund, if any, and pension as applicable etc. In these circumstances, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the reasoning of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ought to have been adopted. He also relied upon the recent ruling of the Supreme Court dated 14.08.2013 in State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 6770/2013]. It was held pertinently therein that the right to receive leave encashment is a vested one which cannot be taken away without authority of law of specific rules.