M. Mohanan v. Canara Bank

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 22933 of 2015** ## **PETITIONER:** **M.MOHANAN AGED 59 YEARS ALRA - 27, CHAITHRAM, BEHIND ANAPARAMBU, EROOR SOUTH P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA - 682 306.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE CANARA BANK REGD. OFFICE NO. 112, J.C ROAD, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENRAL MANAGER - 560 002.** - **2 THE GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SECTION, HUMAN RESOURCES WING, HEAD OFFICE NO. 112,J.C ROAD, BANGALORE - 560002.** - **3 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR APPELLATE AUTHORITY CANARA BANK, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SECTION, HUMAN RESOURCES WING, HEAD OFFICE NO. 112, J.C ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002. BY ADVS. SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN,SC,CANARA BANK** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 22933 of 2015 2** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:- '' _i) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction or order quashing Exts.P3, P5 and P6 as it is illegal and ultravires._ _ii) a writ of mandamus or such other writ direction or order directing the 2[nd] respondent to disburse the Leave Encashment entitled to the petitioner at the earliest._ _iii) a writ, declaring that the petitioner is entitled to leave encashment which is not excluded under Regulation No.38 of the Canara Bank Officers Service Regulation 1979.''_ 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Canara Bank. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been **==> picture [426 x 42] intentionally omitted <==** encashment benefits were not released to the petitioner in spite of Ext.P2 representation, on **WP(C).No. 22933 of 2015 3** the ground that his termination from service as envisaged under Regulation 4(h) of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, disentitled him for such benefits, as Regulation 38 of the Canara Bank Officers' Service Rules, 1979, specifically provided that such benefits would not be payable on dismissal or termination for any reason. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is covered by a decision of the Apex Court. 4. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in _**Bank or Baroda**_ v. _**S.K.Kool (D) Through Lrs. and Another [Civil Appeal No.10956 of 2013 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17054 of**_ _**2009)],** t_ he learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the benefit of terminal leave surrender has been held to be the eligibility of persons, who retired from service or whose services are terminated. It is stated that the High Court of Delhi, considering the Regulation 38 **WP(C).No. 22933 of 2015 4** of the Punjab National Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1979, which is _in pari materia_ with the Canara Bank Officers' Regulations has held that the in case of officers imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement also, pension and other terminal benefits are liable to be granted. It is stated that to single out one class of retirees, ie; those imposed with compulsory retirement as a penalty to deny them the benefit of leave encashment, would be contrary to the plain intent of Regulation 38 of the 1979 Regulations. 5. It is stated that the same view had been taken by the High Courts of Punjab and Haryana in _**Deepak Sapra**_ v. _**Punjab National Bank [LPA 693/2013**_ _**dated 18.09.2013]**_ . It is stated that the Special Leave Petitions taken from those decisions have also been dismissed. 6. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents. It is stated therein that compulsory retirement had been imposed on the **WP(C).No. 22933 of 2015 5** petitioner as a punitive measure under Regulation 4(h) of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. It is stated that those persons who normally retire from service and those who have been imposed with punishment of compulsory retirement form two distinct classes and that as such, the denial of benefit to the persons who have been imposed with punishment of compulsory retirement would be perfectly in order. It is further submitted that in _**Bank of Baroda**_ (supra), what has been considered was the effect of the bipartite settlement and that in the instant case what is under challenge is the denial of terminal leave surrender in respect of an Officer, governed by the provisions of the Regulation 38 of the Canara Bank Officers' Service Rules, 1979. 7. I have considered the contentions advanced. The decisions of the Delhi High Court in _**RK Jain**_ v. _**Punjab National Bank [LPA 607/2013 dated 11.09.2015]**_ and _**Deepak Sapra**_ (supra) are **WP(C).No. 22933 of 2015 6** with regard to Regulation 38 of the Punjab National Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1979. On a reading of the Regulations as extracted in the judgments, it is clear that the said Regulations are _in pari materia_ with the Canara Bank Officers' Regulations,1979. The self same issues that have been raised by the respondents in this writ petition have been specifically considered by the Delhi High Court in _**Deepak Sapra**_ (supra) and in _**R.K.Jain**_ (supra). It is stated that the Special Leave Petitions, which had been filed by the Bank against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in _**Deepak Sapra**_ (supra) have been dismissed. The Delhi High Court has specifically considered the impact of Regulation 38 and has held that the denial of benefits of earned leave surrender is unjustified and discriminatory. In view of the fact that the said judgment have been upheld by the Apex Court also, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the respondents cannot be accepted. **WP(C).No. 22933 of 2015 7** This writ petition is therefore liable to succeed. The impugned orders are set aside. There will be a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to disburse the leave encashment benefits due to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. ## **SD/-** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN** ACM / 16.4.2019 **JUDGE** **WP(C).No. 22933 of 2015 8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 28.10.2013 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY.** **EXHIBIT P2** **P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REPRESENTATION DT. 25.4.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. HRW-IRS:NPS:20:1875:2-14 DT. 30.4.2014 ISSUED BYTHE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 08.5.2014 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5** **P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. HRW:IRS:NPS:20:2142:2014 DT. 14.5.201 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BENK TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P6** **P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. REF:HRW:IRS:KVP:418:22556/2015 DT. 01.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER.**