101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8598-2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.07.2026 ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ..Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate Ms. Nishtha, Advocate Ms. Anju, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel Mr. Lalit Attri, Central Govt. Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by way of issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant benefit of 5 years service as per regulation 29 of Bank Regulations and further directing the respondents to grant the pension on the basis of last 10 months average of last basic pay drawn and further salary/wages for the notice period of 3 months be paid to the members of employees having opted for voluntary retirement in pursuance of Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 10.11.2000. 2. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 contends that Oriental Bank of Commerce is merged with Punjab National Bank and Punjab National Bank is not impleaded as a party. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.17 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8598-2003 (O&M) -2- 3. On oral request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Punjab National Bank is impleaded as party respondent No.4 in the array of parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file amended memo of parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present case is covered by judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of India and another Vs. K. Mohandas and others and connected cases, 2009 (2) SCC (Civil) 524. 6. The relevant paras of Bank of India’s case (supra) are reproduced as under:- “55. Although it has been held by us that the subject employees are entitled to the weightage in terms of Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations, 1995, but we are satisfied that any award of interest on unpaid pension would not be in the interest of justice. It is so because different High Courts did not have unanimous judicial opinion on the issue. Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upheld the contention of the employees with regard to applicability of Regulation 29(5) to the optees who had completed 20 years of service while the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and a single Judge of the Kerala High Court took exactly an opposite view. The stance of the banks, although found not meritorious, cannot be said to be totally frivolous. We, accordingly, hold that the subject employees are not entitled to interest on unpaid pension. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.17 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8598-2003 (O&M) -3- 56. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the appeals preferred by the banks must fail and are dismissed while the appeals of the employees deserve to be allowed and are allowed accordingly. The respective banks shall now recalculate, within one month from today, the pension payable to the concerned employees by giving them the benefit of Regulation 29(5). However, the employees shall not be entitled to interest on unpaid pension. The pending applications in these appeals stand disposed of. The parties shall bear their own costs.” 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of India and another Vs. K. Mohandas and others and connected cases, 2009 (2) SCC (Civil) 524. 8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of. July 14th, 2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Sahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MOHD AYUB 2026.07.17 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.