2026:JHHC:19780-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.350 of 2026 ----- Employers in relation to the Management of Bank of Baroda, Regional Office Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum having its office at Bistupur, PO & PS Bistupur, District Singhbhum East, represented through its Chief Manager, ROSARB Branch, Ranchi Regional Office being Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Son of Lt. Saroj Verma working at Bank of Baroda, ROSARB Branch, PO & PS Lower Bazar, District Ranchi. .......... Appellant. -Versus- 1. Union of India represented through the Ministry of Labour having its office at Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, PO & PS Central Secretariat, New Delhi 2. Their Workmen represented through Vice Chairman, Jharkhand Pradesh Bank Employees Association, Bistupur, PO & PS Bistupur, District East Singhbhum. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate For the UOI : Mr. H.K. Mahato, Sr. Panel Counsel ----- Order No.02 Date: 06.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha who appears with P.A.S. Pati for the appellant and Mr. H.K. Mahato for the 1st respondent-Union of India. 2. The appellant-employer challenges the learned Single Judge’s order dated 12th May, 2026 dismissing appellant’s W.P.(L) No.3328 of 2026 challenging the Central Government Industrial Tribunal’s award dated 13th October, 2025 directing that the second respondent (workman) should be paid the leave encashment amount upon his discharge from service with interest @ 6% per annum. 2026:JHHC:19780-DB 2 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to Regulation 22 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 which provides that 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. He also referred us to Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10th April, 2002 which provides that 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. 4. Mr. Sinha submitted that upon a conjoint reading and construction of the above provisions, it is apparent that past services of the workman would stand forfeited and upon such forfeiture, there was no question of such workman being entitled to benefits of leave encashment. 5. Mr. Sinha referred to the decision of the Full Bench (Five Judes) of this Court in Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025)1 High Court Cases (Jhar)71 in which in the context of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 and Rules 95 and 227 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, it was held that once an employee is dismissed or removed from service, his pay and allowance would cease from and including the date of such dismissal or removal. Consequently, the right to leave encashment, even if it is a form of salary, therefore ceases. 2026:JHHC:19780-DB 3 6. Mr Sinha referred to the conclusions in Paragraphs- 65, 68-71 and 73 of the Full Bench’s decision which has been summarised in the report as follows:- “Once an employee is dismissed or removed from service, his pay and allowance would cease from and including the date of such dismissal or removal. Right to leave encashment, even if it a form of salary, therefore ceases. (Para 65) 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. 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. Thus, an employee, who has been dismissed from service, is not entitled to leave encashment. Since such a right to receive leave encashment was never conferred on an employee, who is dismissed from service, the question of forfeiting the same in the event of his dismissal from service does not arise. (Paras 68-71 and 73).” 7. Mr Sinha, very fairly, also drew our attention to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. S. K. Kool (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Anr. (2014)2 SCC 715. He submitted that this decision was distinguishable. 8. Mr. Mahato, learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that the decision of the Full Bench was in the context of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 and the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. He submitted that the issue now raised in the context of Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement, 2002 and Regulation 22 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 was considered and decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. S. K. 2026:JHHC:19780-DB 4 Kool (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Anr. (2014)2 SCC 715. 9. Mr Mahato submitted that, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in circumstances identical to those in the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that leave encashment could not be denied. 10. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 11. In this case, we must note that the counsel for the appellant- Bank before the learned Single Judge and also before this Appeal Court, fairly referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. S. K. Kool (Supra) and made an attempt to distinguish the same. 12. Mr Sinha also tried to persuade us that the Full Bench’s decision in Ashok Kumar Mishra (Supra), having considered certain aspects of the matter which, according to him, were not noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the decision in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs S. K. Kool (Supra) ought not to be followed in this matter. 13. However, we note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement, 2002, and Regulation 22 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, which are the very provisions at issue in this matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon a harmonious construction of the two provisions, has held 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, 2026:JHHC:19780-DB 5 shall be entitled to those benefits and such of those employees which would include the leave encashment benefits. 14. Since the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is on the very same provisions which fall for our consideration in this matter and further, since the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing precisely with the issue as to whether an employee who is visited with the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits would be entitled for leave encashment, we find it difficult to accept Mr. Sinha’s contention or the basis of his distinction. 15. The learned Single Judge has also entirely relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. S. K. Kool (Supra). The arguments above, this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court being “sub silentio”, have been correctly rejected by the learned Single Judge. Since the decision of the learned Single Judge aligns with the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. S. K. Kool (Supra), we see no scope to admit this appeal. 16. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed without any order for costs. Pending I.A., if any, does not survive and is disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 6th July, 2026 Sanjay/AKT Uploaded on 08.07.2026