CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. O.VIJAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Central Bank of India ('Bank', for short) is the appellant, who seeks to decline an employee discharged from service as a punishment for misconduct; from the benefit of encashment of privilege leave. The brief facts to be noticed are that the employee who is the respondent herein, filed writ petition against the denial of superannuation benefits, including encashment of privilege leave on a discharge effected from the services of the Bank.The learned Single Judge allowed the entire claim of the employee. The appellant Bank is aggrieved only with the directionto grant encashment of the privilege leave.

(2.) Admittedly,the respondent-employee was discharged from the services of the Bank as per Ext.P1, a punishment awarded under clause 6(d) of the Bipartite Settlement producedas Ext.P3, which is dated 10.4.2002. The Bank declined the entire benefits relying on Regulation 31(1) of the Central Bank of India(Employees) Pension Regulations,1995. Regulation 31(1) provided that an employee who is dismissed or removed or terminated from service, shall forfeit his pension. The Bank relying on the Regulation before the learned Single Judge asserted its right to so exercise the option to forfeit the pension due.

(3.) The learnedSingle Judge relied onthe decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in 2014 (2) SCC 715 [ Bank of Baroda v. S.K.Kool ] . The Honourable Supreme Court concerned with the very same regulation for forfeiture and clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement ruled in favour of the employee and directed paymentof the entire superannuation benefits, including encashment of leave, which was included in the reference order to the Industrial Tribunal as is seen from thejudgment itself. The learned Single Judge following the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court found that the Bipartite Settlement of the year 2002 was far later to the Regulations of 1995. With open eyes, the Management of the Bank had entered into a settlement, whereinthe punishments forgross misconduct were clearly laid down; one of such punishments wasdischarge from service with superannuation benefits. Following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge held the discharged employee to be entitled to the entire superannuation benefits, including encashment of privilege leave.