S/L 14 11.09.2026 Court No.04 B.K.N F.M.A. 1813 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 Goutam Chandra Dey @ Goutam Dey Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. Mr. M. R. Sabadhikari … for the Appellant. Ms. Parna Ray Choudhury, Ms. Payel Ghosh … for the Respondent Bank. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant and the learned advocate for the Bank. 2. The facts not in dispute are the petitioner’s removal from service as a penalty pursuant to a departmental proceeding. The removal was tested by the petitioner in departmental appeal and also in review. He thereafter assailed the removal in W.P. No. 30297 (W) of 2015. 3. Before the Writ Court the petitioner abandoned his challenge to the punishment order and prayed for release of the admissible terminal dues. Recording such submission of the writ petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the Bank to release the admissible terminal dues. The same brought to an end the issue regarding the petitioner’s removal from service as a penalty preceded by a departmental enquiry. The order of the Writ Court is dated 03.02.2016. 4. The petitioner filed the present writ petition two years thereafter. The petitioner once again made the prayer in 2 the writ petition seeking quashing of an order of penalty dated 27.10.2014, appellate order dated 25.03.2015 and order passed by the petitioner’s reviewing authority dated 30.09.2015, which relief was already abandoned by the petitioner in W.P. No. 30297 (W) of 2015. The petitioner during pendency of the present writ proceeding was desirous of taking benefit of amendment to the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension (Amendment) Regulation, 2024 whereby and whereunder sub-Regulation 1 was inserted in Regulation 22 which reads: “Provided that the removal of an employee, who is employed in the service of the Bank as a workman on full time work on permanent basis or on part-time work on permanent basis on scale wages, shall not entail for forfeiture of his entire past service and shall qualify for pensionary benefits.” 5. However, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit in the pending proceeding seeking relief in following terms: “Under the facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that Punishment of Removal from Service of the Writ Petitioner be converted into Compulsory Retirement and Respondent Bank be directed to Release the Pension and Leave encashment thereafter.” 6. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner submits that in view of the amended provision despite petitioner’s removal he would be entitled to the benefit of pension. 7. The learned advocate for the Bank draws attention of the Court towards the notification relied upon to submit that 3 the same was issued on 28.06.2024, i.e., much after the petitioner was dismissed in 2014. 8. The learned advocate for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court that the same is implemented retrospectively with effect from 1995, which submission we find is not borne from the record. 9. Be that as it may, the petitioner founded his claim for benefit of the amended regulation on the basis of a supplementary affidavit, seeking conversion of the punishment of removal imposed upon him in 2014, which had attained finality in W.P. No. 30297 (W) of 2015, to a “compulsory retirement”. 10. We find that there is no scope for such prayer made in the supplementary affidavit once the entire issue of petitioner’s removal attained finality; since the petitioner abandoned his relief. The writ petition, therefore, was rightly dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. The same does not require any interference in Intra Court Appeal. 11. The appeal is, therefore, devoid of merit, and dismissed. 12. Pending application is also dismissed. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)