Judgment : Arun Dev Choudhury, J. 1. The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.06.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6360/2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed, and the appellant bank was directed to release the retirement (terminal) benefits to the writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent was initially appointed as a Clerk at UCO Bank in 1971 and he was subsequently promoted to the Officer cadre. 3. In 2008, pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding, the respondent was removed from service by order dated 28.03.2008. Initially, he approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 4798/2008 and the same was disposed of on 07.08.2015, directing the appellate authority to pass a reasoned order. Accordingly, the appellate authority modified the punishment to “removal from service” (without disqualification for future employment). 4. Against such modified order, WP(C) No. 6360/2016 was filed challenging the penalties and claiming retirement benefits. Learned counsel for the respondent placing reliance on the order dated 01.05.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 5939/2014 by the learned Singe Judge, argued that the removal from service did not automatically disentitle the respondent from receiving the superannuation benefits, otherwise due under the extant service regulations and settlements. 5. The bank resisted the writ petition primarily on the ground that, under Regulation 22 of the UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation, 1995), removal from service entitles forfeiture of past service and, consequently, disqualification from pension. 6. It was contended that once the respondent was removed from service, his entire past service stood forfeited and he was not entitled to the pensionary benefits. 7. The learned Single Judge, relying on Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement and Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995, and also placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. S. K. Kool (dead) through Legal Representatives and Another reported in [ (2014) 2 SCC 715 ] and the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank and Another Vs. Vijay Kumar Handa (decided on 03.04.2025) and also the decision of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) No. 5939/2014, held that the writ petitioner therein was entitled to superannuation benefits and accordingly, allowed the aforesaid writ petition. 8. Vijay Kumar Handa (decided on 03.04.2025) and also the decision of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) No. 5939/2014, held that the writ petitioner therein was entitled to superannuation benefits and accordingly, allowed the aforesaid writ petition. 8. Aggrieved thereby, the bank has preferred the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995, clearly provides that removal from service entitles forfeiture of the entire past service and disqualifies the employee from pension. 10. It is contended that the statutory regulations must prevail and that the learned Single Judge erred in applying the ratios of S.K.Kool (supra), and Vijay Kumar Handa (supra), without appreciating that Clause 22 of the Regulation, 1995 disentitles an employee removed from service for claiming the pensionary benefits. 11. An additional contention has been raised by the appellants that the respondent, at the time of his removal from service, was serving in the Officer cadre and not as a workman. It is therefore argued that the Bipartite Settlement entered into between the Indian Banks’ Association and the Banks’ Workmen’s Union is not applicable to him. On that basis, it is contended that Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement cannot be invoked and that the case of the respondent must be governed exclusively by the Regulations, 1995, more particularly, Regulation 22, which provides forfeiture of past service upon removal. 12. Par contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and order and submits that the issue is no longer res-integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of S.K.Kool (supra) and Vijay Kumar Handa (supra), which have harmoniously construed Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement with Regulation 22 of the Regulations,1995 and have held that an employee removed from service “with superannuation benefits is entitled to such benefits provided, if he is otherwise eligible.” 13. According to the learned Senior counsel for the respondent, the ratios laid down in S.K.Kool (supra) and Vijay Kumar Handa (supra) are not confined to workman alone, but rest on a broader principle of harmonious construction between the disciplinary provisions and the pension regulations. 14. Under Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement, an employee can be removed from service with superannuation benefits. 14. Under Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement, an employee can be removed from service with superannuation benefits. Clause 6(b), being the bone of contention, is reproduced below for ready reference: “6 (b) be removed from service with superannuation benefits i.e., pension and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules or regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment; or” 15. Regulation 22 of the Regulation, 1995, provides that removal from service entitles forfeiture of past service and disqualifies an employee from pension. 16. In S.K.Kool (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court examined Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement vis-à-vis Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995. The Court held inter alia: (i) If Regulation 22 is construed to automatically forfeit pensionary benefits in every case of removal, even where removal is specifically imposed, “superannuation benefits” under Clause 6(b), the mandate of the Bipartite Settlement would be rendered otiose; such a construction must be avoided. (ii) the expression “as would be due otherwise”, occurring in Clause 6(b), and Regulation 14 signifies that only those employees, who are otherwise eligible and have completed the minimum qualifying service for pension, would be entitled to such benefits. (iii) Therefore, an employee who is otherwise eligible for superannuation benefits and is removed from service would be entitled to such benefits notwithstanding Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995, as this is the only harmonious construction of the provisions. 17. The aforesaid proposition was reiterated in Vijay Kumar Handa (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reaffirmed that removal from service with superannuation benefits under the Bipartite Settlement cannot be nullified by mechanically invoking forfeiture under Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995. 18. Thus, the law is well settled that a harmonious construction must be adopted, so that Clause 6(b) is not rendered nugatory. 19. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondent joined service in 1971 and was removed from service in 2008. He had rendered more than qualifying service required for pension; the punishment imposed was removal from service. 20. The core question is whether such removal automatically results in forfeiture of pensionary benefits in view of Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995 or whether the respondent is entitled to superannuation benefits in terms of Clause 6(b), as harmoniously construed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 21. 20. The core question is whether such removal automatically results in forfeiture of pensionary benefits in view of Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995 or whether the respondent is entitled to superannuation benefits in terms of Clause 6(b), as harmoniously construed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 21. As regards the applicability of the Bipartite Settlement to the case of the appellants, this Court is of the opinion that the issue in the present case is not merely one of formal applicability of the Bipartite Settlement, but of the proper interpretation of the Pension Regulation in the context of a punishment of removal from service coupled with the superannuation consequences. 22. In our opinion, the ratio of S.K. Kool (supra) does not turn solely on the status of the employee as a workman; the Hon’ble Apex Court examines the interplay between a disciplinary provision contemplating removal from service with superannuation benefits and a pension regulation providing for forfeiture upon removal. 23. The Court held that, where the service framework itself recognizes a category of punishment of removal from service simpliciter, the Pension Regulation cannot be interpreted in a way that renders the provision nugatory. The emphasis was on harmonious construction, so that the provision does not defeat the other. 24. The UCO Bank Officer Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, 1976), though it prescribes removal from service as a major penalty, does not prescribe automatic forfeiture of pensionary benefits. Therefore, even for officers, the disciplinary and pension regulations operate on the same principles as those laid down in S.K. Kool (supra). 25. Since the punishment of removal contemplates removal without disqualification from future employment and without expressly denying superannuation benefits, the Pension Regulations cannot be applied mechanically to forfeit pension rights, particularly where the employee has otherwise completed the qualifying service. 26. The forfeiture of pension is not an automatic or inevitable consequence of any order of removal under the Regulations, 1976. 27. The effect of removal must be ascertained from the governing service record, and pension, being a deferred wage and statutory right, cannot be denied except in accordance with a clear, unambiguous provision. 28. Therefore, a harmonious construction shall require construing the pension regulation in a manner that does not nullify the disciplinary provision preserving superannuation benefits. 29. 27. The effect of removal must be ascertained from the governing service record, and pension, being a deferred wage and statutory right, cannot be denied except in accordance with a clear, unambiguous provision. 28. Therefore, a harmonious construction shall require construing the pension regulation in a manner that does not nullify the disciplinary provision preserving superannuation benefits. 29. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the Bipartite Settlement per se does not directly govern the officers, the interpretative principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.K. Kool (supra) and Vijay Kumar Handa (supra), which harmoniously construes the removal provision and pension regulation, squarely applies to the present case. 30. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contents of the appellants in this regard. 31. The governing principle is not the nomenclature of the cadre but whether the employee has completed the requisite qualifying service, and the disciplinary framework contemplates it in a manner that does not expressly extinguish the superannuation benefits. 32. Accordingly, in view of the authoritative pronouncement as recorded herein above, the issue stands concluded; therefore, this Court does not find any good ground and/or perversity in the impugned judgment and order to exercise its Intra-court appellate jurisdiction to upset such determination. 33. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. 34. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is to be complied with at the earliest and not beyond a period of 4 (four) weeks to be counted from the date of this order.