Allowed

Arvind Rajarajm Patil v. Canara Bank

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026WP/21371/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two compulsorily retired Canara Bank officers challenged endorsements denying leave encashment. Relying on a Co-ordinate Bench order in H.R. Angappa, the court quashed the endorsements and declared petitioners entitled to earned leave encashment under Regulation 38.

What did the court decide?

Endorsements dated 13.01.2016 and 16.01.2016 quashed; petitioners declared entitled to leave encashment per first proviso to Regulation 38; representation to be considered by respondent No.2 within th

Arvind Rajarajm Patil Vs Canara Bank — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27970 WP No. 21371 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 21371 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ARVIND RAJARAJM PATIL (STAFF NO.11305), S/ORAJARAM MARUTHI PATIL, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, MW1/7, SHARAVARI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, FIRST FLOOR, VIVEKANAND NAGAR, KULGAON (EAST), BADIAPUR, DISTRICT THANE - 421503 (MAHARASHTRA)

¶9

SWAPAN KUMAR BISWAS

¶10

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(STAFF NO.16778), S/O LATE SHRISH CH.BISWAS, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, B/F1/10, DESHBANDHU NAGAR, BAGULATI, KOLKATA – 700 059.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. VENUGOPAL M.S, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

CANARA BANK

¶16

REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, 112, J C ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 002.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27970 WP No. 21371 of 2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK, HUMAN RESOURCES WING, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SECTION HEAD OFFICE, No.112, JC ROAD, BANGALORE – 2.

¶20

THE GENERAL MAANGER CANARA BANK, HR DEPARTMENT, IR SECTION, PERSONNEL WING, J C ROAD, BENGALURU - 2.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK, HRM CIRCLE OFFICE, BELLS HOUSE, 21, CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA – 700 016.

¶22

INDIAN BANKS’ ASSOCIATION WORLD TRADE CENTRE COMPLEX, CENTRE 1, 6TH FLOOR, CUFFE PARDE, MUMBAI – 400 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R5 - SERVED)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 13.01.2016 AND 16.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND L AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

¶27

IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:27970 WP No. 21371 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the endorsement dated 13.01.2016 and 16.01.2016 issued by

¶34

respondent No.2 vide Annexures K and L respectively and sought for mandamus directing respondent No.2 to extend and permit the petitioner to increase the due standing to their credit.

¶35

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

¶36

Petitioner No.1 joined the service of respondent No.1-Bank on 04.11.1971 and petitioner No.2 joined the service of respondent No.1-Bank on 10.10.1974 and they have rendered the services for more than 30 years in respondent No.1-Bank. Respondent No.1-Bank has passed an order for compulsory retirement vide order dated 31.01.2008. Petitioner No.2 was imposed with the penalty

¶37

of compulsory retirement as per clause 4(f) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' Discipline and Appeal Regulations,

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27970 WP No. 21371 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

1976, (for short, ‘the Discipline and Appeal Regulations’). The penalty imposed on petitioner No.2 has become final and is not under challenge in any judicial forums. Similarly, respondent No.1 has also passed an order of compulsory retirement of petitioner No.1 under the said Regulation. A joint note was signed between the parties on 27.04.2010 for extending second option for pension. Thus, respondent No.1 on the basis of the communication received from respondent No.3 vide letter dated 10.08.2010 issued a circular dated 21.08.2018. The petitioners are challenging the said circular in W.P.No. 23702-23704/2012. It is contended that the petitioners were not paid with the encashment of earned leave even after compulsory retirement, they have submitted a representation. The respondents have issued an endorsement contending that the employees are not entitled for the encashment. Hence, this writ petition.

¶41

3. Respondent No.4 filed a statement of objections

¶42

contending that the compulsory retired employees are not

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27970 WP No. 21371 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

entitled for earned leave. They have not furnished the details of leave encashment. It is also contended that as per the Regulation, the compulsory retired employees are not entitled for earned leave. Hence, on this ground, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶46

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the respondents.

¶47

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in an identical matter, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of H. R ANGAPPA DEAD BY LR S V S . THE

¶48

M ANAGING D IRECTOR , C ANARA B ANK AND ANOTHER in W.P.N O .32124/2013 has passed an order declaring that the petitioner therein shall be paid leave encashment in term of the first proviso to Regulation 38 of the Regulations. He submits that the petitioners are entitled for similar benefit on the ground of parity. He submits that the order passed in H.R ANGAPPA (Supra) has attended the

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27970 WP No. 21371 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

finality. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition in terms of the order passed in H.R ANGAPPA (Supra).

¶52

6. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned endorsement and submits that the respondents have passed an order of punishment of compulsory retirement. Hence, as per the Regulations they

¶53

are not entitled for earned leave. Hence, the impugned endorsement issued is in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶54

7. Perused the records and considered the

¶55

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶56

8. The Co-ordinate Bench has an occasion to consider the provisions of the Regulations 38 of the Canara Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 (for short, ‘the Regulations’) are not amended and the provision of this Regulations are as of the date of decision in the case of A SHWANI K UMAR S HARMA V S . UCO B ANK AND

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:27970 WP No. 21371 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

O THERS reported in 2006 SCC O NLINE P & H 1730 and

¶61

C ANARA B ANK AND O THERS V S . R ANVIR S INGH . The Co-

¶62

ordinate Bench held in para No.7, which reads as follows:

¶63

7. This Court is in respectful agreement with the reasoning by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in A SHWANI K UMAR S HARMA case that the provisions of Regulation 38 cannot be advanced to deny payment of leave encashment and reading of the provisions of that effect would violate the provisions of Regulations because the Regulations at the first instance provide for lapse of leave to the credit of an officer on resignation with the employer-employee relationship coming to an end and the first proviso providing for payment. If it cannot be disputed that this payment is for the leave earned while in service, this benefit cannot be denied by reading the provisions when there is no express stipulation to that effect. Therefore, the petition would be allowed in part directing the respondents to pay leave encashment as would be payable to the petitioner by the following order”

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(a) The petition is allowed in part declaring that the petitioner shall be paid leave encashment in terms of the first proviso to

¶66

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:27970 WP No. 21371 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Regulations 38 of the Regulations. The petitioner is reserved liberty to file necessary representation with a certified copy of this order with the second respondent, and within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶69

(b) The second respondent, if the representation is so filed, shall, within the next three (3) months, communicate the details of the communication and payment thereof.

¶70

9. As the Co-ordinate Bench considering the

¶71

Regulation 38 held that the respondent cannot deny the payment of leave encashment and reading the provisions to that effect would violate the provisions of Regulations and directed the respondents to leave encashment as it would be applicable. This Court concur with the findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of H.R ANGAPPA (Supra).

¶72

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:27970 WP No. 21371 of 2022

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

10. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶78

ii. The impugned endorsement dated 13.01.2016 and 16.01.2016 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexures K and L respectively are hereby quashed.

¶79

iii. It is declared that the petitioners shall be paid leave encashment in terms of the first proviso to Regulation 38 of the Regulations.

¶80

iv. The petitioners are at liberty to file a necessary representation along with certified copy of this order with respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶81

v. Respondent No.2, if the representation is so filed, shall consider within three months and communicate the details of the communication and payment thereof.

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:27970 WP No. 21371 of 2022

¶83