JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the opposite parties in not making payment of his arrear alary for 8 days i.e. from 1.6.2009 to 8.6.2009 and the dues with regard to encashment of 240 days earned leave after his retirement from service as Assistant Manager/Manager at different branches of the UCO Bank. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present, writ petition pre that the petitioner joined in Clerical cadre in April, 1970 in UCO Bank and promoted to the Officer cadre in July, 1979. Thereafter, the petitioner while discharging his duties at different branches of the Bank was posted at Cuttack Main Branch as Assistant Manager (Accounts) on 16.7.2008. While he was functioning as Assistant Manager (Accounts) at main Branch, Cuttack, received a charge-sheet alleging commission of irregularities on five grounds during the period from 21.12.2004 to 28.7.2007 of the Bank. Out of five charges: only three charges were proved by the Enquiry Officer and accordingly on 12.5.2008 the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service against him, even if the Bank authority did not find any financial loss or any kind of misappropriation. Being aggrieved with the said order of compulsory retirement, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, the appellate authority confirmed the order of punishment imposed against him, even after getting positive information from the zonal office, Bhuhaneswar of the Bank that the money was deposited with the Branch on 29.6.2007 and the bank has not sustained any loss and therefore the petitioner did not think it proper to move any legal forum against the order of appellate authority since he had only six months service for, superannuation. It is averred that as per the practice followed in the Bank, at the closure of business, the Assistant Manager (Cash) reconciled the receipt and payment with the records of Accounts Section and prepares the cashiers summary register which is signed by the Head of the Cash Department and countersigned by the Assistant Manager (Accounts) after verifying the physical cash in vault. 3. The petitioner received the order of punishment as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on 8.6.2009 while he was at main branch, Cuttack and by that time, 240 days of earned leave (privileged leave) was at his credit as per the Bank record. 3. The petitioner received the order of punishment as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on 8.6.2009 while he was at main branch, Cuttack and by that time, 240 days of earned leave (privileged leave) was at his credit as per the Bank record. He has saved such leave to encashment the same to fetch some financial gain which would help him at old age. Accordingly, the petitioner applied the bank authority in proper formats to settle his retrial benefits such as provident fund contribution, gratuity, leave encashment etc and the Bank authority allowed payment of his provident fund contribution and sanctioned his pensionary benefit. Thereafter, the petitioner represented the authority i.e. Chief Manager, UCO Bank of Cuttack (Main) Branch for payment of encashment due and his salary for the period from 1.6.2009 to 8.6.2009. However, the bank authority vide letter dated 26.8.2009 intimated him that since he was retired from Bank service compulsorily, he would not be eligible to get those benefit. Petitioner again filed a representation on. 3.11.2009 reiterating the said fact and highlighting the entire incident which led to initiation of the disciplinary proceeding and disposal of the appeal thereof. As per Clause 38 of the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 and subsequent amendment made thereto, he is entitled to the period of privilege leave which he had accumulated during his tenure of service. The order of punishment was imposed against the petitioner by the, Disciplinary Authority on 8.6.2009 and his leave was sanctioned till that date by the Bank authority as revealed from Leave Ledger (Annexure-2). Therefore, he is entitled to salary of those leave days. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties taking a stand that the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on 12.5.2009 against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal and petitioner was well aware about the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner was on leave till 31.5.2009 and thereafter remained absent from duty unauthorized from 1.6.2009 to 8.6.2009. The petitioner appeared on 8.6.2009 and received the order of the Disciplinary Authority immediately when the Bank published order in daily News Paper. The petitioner was on leave till 31.5.2009 and thereafter remained absent from duty unauthorized from 1.6.2009 to 8.6.2009. The petitioner appeared on 8.6.2009 and received the order of the Disciplinary Authority immediately when the Bank published order in daily News Paper. As the petitioner did not perform his duty for the period from 1.6.2009 to 8.6.2009 and was compulsorily retired from service by virtue of the findings of the Disciplinary Proceeding, he is not entitled to get any leave encashment as claimed by him for 240 days which got lapsed on compulsorily retirement. It is contended that as per Regulation 38 of UCO Bank Officers Regulations 1979, which was amended in the year 1999 and approved by the Board in its meeting dated 9.8.1997 as revealed from the Bank letter dated 23.3.1999 incorporating the words discharge, dismissal or termination in 1st paragraph of Clause-38 thereof. Since punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the benefit which is equivalent to the emoluments of 240 days privilege leave that .had been accumulated in his credit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the punishment was imposed, the same has not been communicated to the petitioner and it was only communicated on 8.6.2009 and the petitioner has worked for 8 days and his leave was sanctioned by the authorities as revealed from Annexure-2, the petitioner is entitled to 8 days salary. He further submitted that as per Clause-38 of the aforesaid regulation, petitioner was retired from service and his service was neither terminated nor he was discharged from service or the words discharge, termination and dismissal are there, he is entitled to 240 days privilege leave and salary for the period from 1.6.2009 to 8.6.2009 as per the said clause. He further submitted that as per Clause-38 of the aforesaid regulation, petitioner was retired from service and his service was neither terminated nor he was discharged from service or the words discharge, termination and dismissal are there, he is entitled to 240 days privilege leave and salary for the period from 1.6.2009 to 8.6.2009 as per the said clause. In support of his contention, he cited the decisions reported in cases of State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1313, Union of India and others v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and others, 1998 (6) Supreme 534 , Arun Kumar Sood v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 and in the case of Arun Kumar Sood v. The Chairman and M.D., UCO Bank and others (CWP No. 133 of 2001, High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla) where in a .similar situation, Clause 38 of the UCO Bank (Officers) Service Regulation was taken into consideration and it was held that the provision was applicable to punitive termination and not punitive retirement and the authority did riot entitle to withhold leave encashment and there is no provision for withholding leave encashment in case of compulsory retirement. Such decision was rendered on 21st October, 2010 after the amendment in question was come into force. Therefore; the stand taken by the opposite parties is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties Bank however submitted that since the words discharge, dismissal and termination have been incorporated, in that view of the matter compulsory retirement is a punishment. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the said benefit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed notes of argument reiterating the facts as narrated in the writ petition with certain supporting decisions. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party-UCO bank filed a written notes of argument inter-alia stating that the petitioner was granted pension with effect from 13th May, 2009 and the petitioner is claiming salary for the period from 1.6.2009 to 8.6.2009. The petitioner remained on leave till 31.5.2009 and he was intimated that he cannot extend leave after 1.6.2009 and that the petitioner has been paid salary till 31.5.2009 when he was made to retire from service with effect from 31.5.2009. The petitioner remained on leave till 31.5.2009 and he was intimated that he cannot extend leave after 1.6.2009 and that the petitioner has been paid salary till 31.5.2009 when he was made to retire from service with effect from 31.5.2009. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted double benefit i.e. salary and pension for the self same period. 8. The apex Court in the case of State of Punjab (supra) held that mere passing of an order of dismissal is not effective unless it is published and communicated to the officer concerned. An order of dismissal passed by an appropriate authority and kept on its file without communicating it to the officer concerned or otherwise publishing it does not take effect as from the date on which the order is actually written out by the said authority such an order can only be effective after it is communicated to the officer concerned or is otherwise published. The order of dismissal passed against the officer could not be said to have taken effect until he came to know about it. 9. The apex Court has considered a similar issue in the case of B.J: Shelat v. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1109 and observed that unless the intention to take an action is communicated, it cannot be given effect to for the reason that the proviso to become operative, it is necessary that the authority should not only take a decision, but also communicate to the person concerned and the actual knowledge of such an order is necessary. The aforesaid ratio is applicable to the present case and since the order of compulsory retirement was communicated to the petitioner on 8.6.2009, the said order is effective from that date in prior to. it.' 10. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the record it appears that the order of punishment was communicated to the petitioner on 8.6.2009 and petitioners leave was sanctioned vide Annexure-2 till that date. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the petitioner was performing his duty till the order of punishment was communicated to him i.e. on 8.6.2009. Since his leave 'was sanctioned up to 8.6.2009, he is entitled to the sum equivalent to the emoluments for the period from 1.6.2009 to 8.6.2009. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the petitioner was performing his duty till the order of punishment was communicated to him i.e. on 8.6.2009. Since his leave 'was sanctioned up to 8.6.2009, he is entitled to the sum equivalent to the emoluments for the period from 1.6.2009 to 8.6.2009. 'The Bank has allowed the salary up to 31st May, 2009 even though the order of compulsory retirement was passed on 12.5.2009. So far as Clause-38 is concerned, even if after amendment of the said clause incorporating the words "discharge", dismissal" and "termination" no where it is stated that if an employee is compulsorily retired, he is not entitled to get that benefit, rather, on retirement a Bank employee is entitled to such earned leave, which he accumulated during his service tenure as held in the decision of Arun Kumar Sood (supra) where the said Court taking into consideration Clause-38 has observed as follows. For better appreciation, Clause-38 runs as under: "38. Lapse of Leave, Save as provided below, all the leave to the credit of an officer shall lapse on resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal or termination that where an officer retires from the banks service he shall be eligible to be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments of any period, not provided further where an officer dies while in-service, there shall be payable to his legal representatives, a sum equivalent to the emoluments for the period, not exceeding 240 days, of privilege leave to his credit as on the date of his death. A perusal of the above shows that Clause (e) of Regulation 46 above, which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants cannot apply to the case of compulsory retirement. Similarly, First Proviso to Regulation 38 clearly shows that on retirement, an officer is entitled to leave encashment. There is no provision for withholding gratuity and leave encashment in the case of compulsory retirement." 11. Keeping in view of the decision rendered in the case of Arun Kumar Sood (supra); this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit claimed by him. It is made clear that in case the opposite party-bank has taken unilateral action which is not binding on the petitioner, the bank authority shall recalculate the service benefit and pension of the petitioner afresh. It is made clear that in case the opposite party-bank has taken unilateral action which is not binding on the petitioner, the bank authority shall recalculate the service benefit and pension of the petitioner afresh. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, No cost. Petition allowed.