Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43338 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7960 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Respondent :- Punjab National Bank Thru. Executive Director New Delhi And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Pati Shukla,Shrey Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Brajendra Amiy Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Rama Pati Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Brajendra Amiy, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to make the payment of leave encashment of 240 days along with 10% interest per annum. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has been dismissed from service vide order dated 13.04.2016, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition. Now the petitioner claims the leave encashment along with interest. 5. At the time of dismissal from service, admittedly the petitioner was an employee of Oriental Bank of Commerce which stood merged with Punjab National Bank in the year 2020 and consequently it is the Regulations of the Oriental Bank of Commerce which would be applicable on the petitioner. 6. Sri Amiy has placed reliance on Regulation 38 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce (Officers') Service Regulations, 1982; Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1982, and Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982, to contend that Regulation 38 categorically provides that all leave to the credit of an officer shall lapse on resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal or termination and that as the petitioner has been dismissed from service consequently all leaves stand lapsed and as such no amount towards leave encashment is payable. 7. Responding, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of G. Linganagouda vs. General Manager, Karnataka Gramina Bank - NC:2025:KHC-D:3366, to contend that the Karnataka High Court has held that leave encashment would be payable even to a dismissed employee. 8. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Deepak Sapra vs. Punjab National Bank passed in LPA 693 of 2013 decided on 18.09.2013 to contend that the Delhi High Court has held with respect to even a compulsorily retired employee and compulsorily retirement falling within the ambit of being a major penalty the said employee would be entitled for leave encashment. 9. The further argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that leave encashment is a property as defined under Article 300-A earned before the dismissal. 10. Admittedly, the vires of the Regulations have not been challenged which specifically provide that with respect to a dismissed employee the leave to the credit of an officer shall lapse. Thus, once the petitioner is a dismissed employee the leaves standing to his credit lapses. 11. Once no challenge has been raised to the aforesaid regulations consequently it is the regulations which would be applicable. 12. Once the regulations themselves provide that the leaves to the credit of the dismissed officer shall stand lapsed and admittedly the petitioner having been dismissed from service as such as per the regulations 1982 the leave which stood to the credit of the petitioner stood lapsed. 13. So far as the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of G. Linganagouda (supra) is concerned, the leave rules as applicable on the employees of the said Bank, which was the Pragati Krishna Gramina Bank, were totally at variance to the regulations as applicable to the Oriental Bank of Commerce. Thus, the said judgment would have no applicability in the facts of the instant case. 14. So far as the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Deepak Sapra (supra) is concerned, the High Court has in fact referred to the regulations of the Bank but after considering the said provisions, the Delhi High Court has held that the said regulations specifically provide the clause 'save as provided below' which in turn would mean that for eventualities specifically enumerated i.e. resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal or any other kind of termination, the leave standing to the credit of an officer is to lapse but the proviso 'save as provided below' categorically provided that where an officer retires from the Bank's service then he would be entitled for leave encashment. 15. The Delhi High Court has held that the penalty of compulsory retirement would render the employee concerned to fall within the ambit of a retiree and consequently he would be entitled for leave encashment. 16. As already indicated above, the penalty imposed on the petitioner is dismissal from service and regulation 38 categorically provides for lapse of leave to the credit of an officer. Thus the Delhi High Court's judgment would not be of any avail to the petitioner. 17. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that leave encashment is a property earned before dismissal is concerned, as already indicated above, once the regulations themselves provide for a forfeiture of all the leaves standing to the credit of the employee concerned consequently it is regulations/service conditions which would be applicable on the employee concerned. Thus, the said ground is also rejected. 18. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 A. Katiyar Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench