Delhi High Court - Orders
Uttam Dastidar vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 9 March, 2026
$~2 to 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 752/2023
UTTAM DASTIDAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. N.C. Gupta, Advocate.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Mr.
Deepanjal Chaudhary, Mr. Vibhu
Sharma and Mr. Likivi K. Jakhalu,
Advocates for R1/PNB.
+ LPA 753/2023 & CM APPL. 13416/2025
BANKIM CHANDRA DATTA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. N.C. Gupta, Advocate.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Mr.
Deepanjal Chaudhary, Mr. Vibhu
Sharma and Mr. Likivi K. Jakhalu,
Advocates for R1/PNB.
+ LPA 756/2023
SOBHAN SINHA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. N.C. Gupta, Advocate.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Mr.
Deepanjal Chaudhary, Mr. Vibhu
Sharma and Mr. Likivi K. Jakhalu,
Advocates for R1/PNB.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/03/2026 at 20:47:18
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
ORDER
% 09.03.2026
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants in all these three Appeals and the learned Counsel representing the Respondent - Bank.
2. The common question, which engages our attention in all these Appeals, is as to whether in a situation where an employee of the Respondent - Bank is compulsorily retired as a measure of punishment, under what circumstances his pension shall be fixed at a reduced rate in terms of Regulation 33 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995 ("Pension Regulations").
3. In the instant case, as is apparent from the perusal of the records available before us, the pension of the Appellants was fixed at 2/3rd of the full pension after seeking approval of the Board of Directors ("Board") of the Respondent - Bank, however, it appears that the matter was thereafter again taken up, in general, regarding the situations in which reduced pension will be paid to an employee, who has been compulsorily retired as a measure of punishment. The Board, accordingly, vide its Resolution No. 9 passed in the meeting held on 25th and 26th July, 2013 resolved that, ordinarily full pension be allowed to the employees in case no reference regarding reduction in terminal dues by the disciplinary authority in the final order is made. It was further resolved that, however, where the disciplinary authority makes a reference in the final order to reduce pension, the matter be placed before the competent authority as per the Pension Regulations.
4. Keeping in view the said Resolution of the Board passed in its meeting held on 25th and 26th July, 2013, the Bank Management appears to This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/03/2026 at 20:47:18 have prepared a Note dated 18.10.2016 for reconsideration of the matter relating to payment of pension to the Appellants. A copy of the said Note prepared by the Bank Management for consideration of the Board, dated 18.10.2016 has been tendered to the Court, which is taken on record. A copy of the said Note has also been furnished to the learned Counsel representing the Respondent - Bank.
5. A perusal of the said Note reveals that the matter relating to 23 employees, including the Appellants, for consideration as to whether they should be paid full pension or pension at a reduced rate, was proposed to be considered by the Board. The Note prepared by the Bank Management dated 18.10.2016 also clearly mentions the view of the Management. It further notes that except for these 23 employees, no other employee, who stood compulsorily retired as a measure of punishment has been sanctioned final pension at a reduced rate. It also mentions that the order fixing the pension at a reduced rate is not a speaking order, neither before passing such an order any show cause notice was served upon these employees which, as observed above, include the Appellants as well.
6. It appears that the Agenda Note dated 18.10.2016 was considered by the Board in its meeting held on 04.11.2016, where the decision in respect of 23 employees, including the Appellants, was deferred.
7. Our attention has also been drawn to the Resolution passed by the Board in its meeting held on 30.12.2021, whereby the Board has accorded its approval for grant of full pension to one Sh. Baldev Raj Mahi, who is said to be similarly placed with the Appellants in as much as that he was also compulsorily retired on 06.07.2011 as a measure of punishment.
8. The learned Counsel for the Respondent - Bank shall, thus, file an Affidavit bringing on record of this Court as to whether any final decision This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/03/2026 at 20:47:18 on the Agenda Note dated 18.10.2016 has been taken or not. The Affidavit, to be filed by the Respondent - Bank shall also state as to why the full pension may not be paid to the Appellant as well keeping in view the decision taken by the Bank in respect of Sh. Baldev Raj Mahi, who is said to be similarly placed with the Appellants.
9. The said Affidavit shall be filed, as stated above, within a fortnight, after serving a copy thereof upon the learned Counsel for the Appellants, who may file his response to the said Affidavit by the next date of listing.
10. List on 07.05.2026. The matter to be placed 'High on Board'.
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TEJAS KARIA, J MARCH 9, 2026/sms This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/03/2026 at 20:47:18