2026:JHHC:14470 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 3328 of 2026 Employers in relation to the Management of Bank of Baroda, Regional Office Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum represented through its Regional Head (AGM), Jamshedpur Region being Mr. Amit Kumar aged about 52 years son of Mr. Dwarika Prasad, both having their office at Bistupur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, District Singhbhum East … … Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India represented through the Ministry of Labour having its office at Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, P.O. & P.S. Central Secretariat, New Delhi 2. Their Workmen represented through Vice Chairman, Jharkhand Pradesh Bank Employees Association, Bistupur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, District East Singhbhum … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 – UOI : Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahato, Advocate --- 03/12.05.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For quashing the Award dated 13.10.2025 passed in Reference Case No. 01/2018 (Annexure-8) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 1 Dhanbad whereby and whereunder it has held that the leave encashment benefits is included in superannuation benefits that has been allowed by the management and incorporated in the discharge order itself and when pension, provident fund and gratuity was allowed, the management has no right to withhold the leave encashment of the workman which is not bounty but right of the workman and accordingly it is held that the workman, Chattu Ram is entitled to receive encashment of leave also upon his discharge from service and at the same time the management is directed to calculate the amount of leave encashment payable to the workman along with interest @ 6% P.A. and pay the same within 2 months from the date of publication of the Award.” 2. Vide order dated 26.12.2017 of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, reference was made to the learned Industrial 2026:JHHC:14470 2 Tribunal under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which as under: “Whether Shri Chattu Ram, the ex-employee of the Bank of Baroda is entitled to receive Encashment of Leave upon his discharge from service as punishment under order Discharge from Bank’s service with superannuation benefits i.e., pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rule or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment?” 3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 13.10.2025 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 01/2018 (Annexure-8) whereby it has been held that leave encashment benefits is included in superannuation benefit which was allowed by the management and incorporated in the discharge order itself whereby, pension, provident fund and gratuity was allowed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the bipartite settlement dated 10.04.2002 and has submitted that the punishment which was imposed upon the concerned workman was under clause 6(b) i.e., an employee found guilty of gross misconduct may 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. Clause 6(b) of Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 is quoted as under: “6. An employee found guilty of gross misconduct may: (a)… (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;” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has then referred to the fact that the employees are governed by CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and has referred to the Frequently Asked Questions regarding Leave Encashment on Suspension/Dismissal/Removal and has referred to question no.2 and its answer, which is as follows: 2026:JHHC:14470 3 Sl. No. Frequently asked Questions Answer 1. … …. 2. Whether leave encashment can be sanctioned to a Govt. servant on his dismissal/removal, from service? A government servant, who is dismissal/removed from service, ceases to have any claim to leave at his credit from the date of such dismissal, as per rule 9(1). Hence he is not entitled to any leave encashment. 5. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid Frequently asked Question and answer thereto, the concerned workman was not entitled for leave encashment even if he was removed from service with superannuation benefits. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court reported in (2025) 1 HC (Jhar) 71 : 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 967 (Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and others) and has submitted that there was similar provision under Jharkhand Service Code and it has been ultimately held by the Hon’ble Full Bench that the employee would not be entitled for leave encashment. He has referred to paragraphs 60 to 63 and 67 to 70 of the aforesaid judgment which are quoted as under: “60. It, however, referred only to the rule relating to grant of pension i.e. Rules 43(a) and 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and did not deal with any rule allegedly conferring the right to receive “leave encashment” or the provision “taking away” the right of an employee to get leave encashment. No doubt, it also held in favour of the respondent therein on aspects of pension/gratuity and also leave encashment, but the point relating to leave encashment had not been argued or considered by the Court. 61. In such circumstances, although leave encashment was logically involved in the facts and although the case had a specific outcome, the decision is not an authority on withholding of leave encashment. 62. The said issue, we hold had passed sub silentio and so the said decision having been rendered without any argument on 2026:JHHC:14470 4 the aspect of withholding of leave encashment and the statutory/legal regime governing the same, cannot be said to be a precedent and binding on this Court. 63. Also in the said case, the question was only with regard to withholding of pension/gratuity and leave encashment during the pendency of departmental/criminal proceeding. The Supreme Court was not considering whether the respondent in that case was entitled to leave encashment in spite of conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty and dismissed from service. Therefore, this is also an additional reason why the said judgment cannot be said to be binding precedent on the aspect of right of a dismissed employee to get leave encashment benefit. 64… 65… 66… 67. Rule 101(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 states: “101(a). Resignation of the public service or dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency, not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination entails forfeiture of past service.” 68. Since, in the case of dismissal of an employee his entire past service stands forfeited by virtue of Rule 101(a), consequently even the benefit such as an earned leave relatable to such past service would stand forfeited. 69. Consequently, there is no question of encashment for earned leave, because whatever earned leave had accrued to the employee, it stood forfeited on account of his dismissal. 70. For the reasons given above, we hold on to Point B that an employee, who has been dismissed from service, is not entitled to leave encashment.” 7. However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 2 SCC 715 (Bank of Baroda Vs. S.K. Kool (Dead) through legal representatives and another) and has submitted that this judgment has been taken note of by the learned Industrial Tribunal but the CCS (Leave) Rules were not placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing the aforesaid 2026:JHHC:14470 5 judgment and therefore, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is sub silentio. However, it is not in dispute that the same bipartite agreement was under consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon going through the impugned award and considering the limited dispute which is involved in this case, as to whether the concerned workman would be entitled to leave encashment in view of the aforesaid punishment imposed under clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002, this Court is of the view that the Frequently asked Question, which has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable in the present case in view of the fact that the same was relatable to Leave Encashment on Suspension/Dismissal/Removal and the present case is related to removal from service with superannuation benefits, that is, pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules and regulations prevailing at the relevant time. 4. This Court finds that the same bipartite agreement was subject matter of consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment reported in (2014) 2 SCC 715 (Supra) and it has been held that the concerned employee was entitled for leave encashment. This Court also finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while granting the said benefit, has also taken into consideration Regulation 22 of Pension Regulations, 1995 which deals with Forfeiture of past Service. Paragraphs 13 to 15 of the judgment reported in (2014) 2 SCC 715 (Bank of Baroda Vs. S.K. Kool (Dead) through legal representatives and another) are quoted as under: “13. Regulation 22 of the Regulations, which is relied on to deny the claim of the employee reads as follows: “22. Forfeiture of service.—(1) Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail for forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits.” From a plain reading of the aforesaid Regulation, it is evident that removal of an employee shall entail forfeiture of his entire 2026:JHHC:14470 6 past service and consequently such an employee shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. If we accept this submission, no employee removed from service in any event would be entitled for pensionary benefits. But the fact of the matter is that the Bipartite Settlement provides for removal from service with pensionary benefits “as would be due otherwise under the rules or regulations prevailing at the relevant time”. The consequence of this construction would be that the words quoted above shall become a dead letter. Such a construction has to be avoided. 14. The Regulations do not entitle every employee to pensionary benefits. Its application and eligibility is provided under Chapter II of the Regulations whereas Chapter IV deals with qualifying service. An employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service and fulfils other conditions only can qualify for pension in terms of Regulation 14 of the Regulations. Therefore, the expression “as would be due otherwise” would mean only such employees who are eligible and have put in minimum number of years of service to qualify for pension. However, such of the employees who are not eligible and have not put in required number of years of qualifying service shall not be entitled to the superannuation benefits though removed from service in terms of Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement. Clause 6(b) came to be inserted as one of the punishments on account of the Bipartite Settlement. It provides for payment of superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise. 15. The Bipartite Settlement tends to provide a punishment which gives superannuation benefits otherwise due. The construction canvassed by the employer shall give nothing to the employees in any event. Will it not be a fraud Bipartite Settlement? Obviously it would be. From the conspectus of what we have observed we have no doubt that such of the employees who are otherwise eligible for superannuation benefit are removed from service in terms of Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement shall be entitled to superannuation benefits. This is the only construction which would harmonise the two provisions. It is well-settled rule of construction that in case of apparent conflict between the two provisions, they should be so interpreted that the effect is given to both. Hence, we are of the opinion that such of the employees who are otherwise entitled to superannuation benefits under the Regulations if visited with the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits shall be entitled for those benefits and such of the employees though visited with the same penalty but are not 2026:JHHC:14470 7 eligible for superannuation benefits under the Regulations shall not be entitled to that.” 9. So far as the judgment passed by Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in (2025) 1 HC (Jhar) 71 (Supra) is concerned, the Hon’ble Full Bench has taken note in paragraph 68 of its judgment that in case of dismissal of an employee, his entire past service stands forfeited by virtue of Rule 101(a), consequently even the benefit, such as an earned leave relatable to such past service, would stand forfeited. 10. In the present case, since the removal from service of the workman was with superannuation benefits, it cannot be said that the entire past service stood forfeited. The aforesaid Full Bench Judgment does not apply to the facts of this case. 11. However, the fact remains that the entitlement of the concerned workman is squarely covered against the present petitioner in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 2 SCC 715 (Supra) and the impugned award passed by the learned industrial tribunal has taken note of the aforesaid judgment. Otherwise also, the impugned award is a well-reasoned award. Findings of the learned Industrial Tribunal are as under: “17. The main issue in this case is that as per the workman when he has been paid pension, provident fund and gratuity as per the order of discharge which says that he is discharged from Bank service with superannuation benefits, he is also entitled to the leave encashment because the leave encashment is also included in the superannuation benefits whereas the management says that the workman was discharged from Bank service on 02.05.2015 for which there is no provisions, rule or regulations to provide him leave encashment benefits. 18. … The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Bank of Baroda vs. S.K. Kool (D), Through Legal Representatives and another reported in (2014) 2 SCC 715 has been pleased to hold that the clerk who was working with the Bank of Baroda and was removed from service after departmental enquiry with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise and without disqualification from future employment whose prayer for leave encashment that was declined by Bank of Baroda, is entitled for leave encashment. 2026:JHHC:14470 8 19. Considering the above materials on record as well as authorities cited above this Tribunal is of the opinion that the leave encashment benefits is included in superannuation benefits that has been allowed by the management and incorporated in the discharge order itself and when pension, provident fund and gratuity was allowed, the management has no right to withhold the leave encashment of the workman which is not bounty but right of the workman and accordingly it is held that the workman Chattu Ram is entitled to receive encashment of leave also upon his discharge from service and at the same time the management is directed to calculate the amount of leave encashment payable to the workman along with interest @ 6% P.A and pay the same within 2 months from the date of publication of this Award. 12. There being no perversity, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned award under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. 14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of order: 12.05.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:14.05.2026