ORDER : Ajay Rastogi, J. 1. Instant intra court appeal is directed against order of the Ld. Single Judge impugned dated 28-7-2017 in reference to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10440/2008 and complaint of the writ petitioner (deceased employee) was that on account of penalty of compulsory retirement inflicted upon him in a departmental enquiry dated 14-1-2008 his payment towards encashment of Privilege Leave has been withheld by the respondents and arbitrarily denied to him. Although the Ld. Single Judge of this Court has rejected his claim for encashment of Privilege Leave under the order impugned dated 28-7-2017. 2. The indisputed facts which emerges for consideration are that the deceased employee while in service was served with a charge-sheet for holding disciplinary enquiry for major penalty dated 11-8-2007 and stood retired from service on superannuation on 31-10-2007 and after being superannuated he was punished with the penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated 14-1-2008. We have our own reservations as to whether the authorities could at all impose penalty of compulsory retirement to a deceased employee who stood superannuated much prior thereto but it is not the question for us to examine as not being raised by the appellant before us. 3. It is unfortunate that the employee died during litigation on 11-2-2009 and his legal representatives were brought on record who pursued the writ petition before the Ld. Single Judge of this Court. Although both the writ petitions have been decided by the Ld. Single Judge by common order but the writ petition No. 10440/2008 is regarding withholding of encahsment of privilege leave that has been dismissed under the order impugned in reference to Reg.38 of the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 ("Regulations, 1979"). Reg.38 with which we are presently concerned, being relevant for the purpose, is quoted as under : "38. Lapse of Leave Save as provided below, all leave to the credit of an officer shall lapse on resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal or terminate : Provided that where an officer retires from the Bank's service, he shall be eligible to paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments of any period, exceeding 240 days of Privilege Leave that he had accumulated. Provided further that where an officer dies while in service, there shall be payable to his legal representatives, a sum equivalent to the emoluments for the period exceeding 240 days of Privilege Leave to his credit as on the date of his death. Provided also that where an officer resigns from service on or after 1st April 2001 after giving due notice as in sub-regulation(2) of Regulation 20, he may be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments in respect of Privilege Leave to the extent of half of such leave to his credit on the date of cession of service, subject to maximum of 120 days." 4. Counsel for appellant has brought to our notice that the very Reg.38 of the Regulations, 1979 has come up for consideration before the Larger Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the question arose was as to whether a person who has been compulsorily retired on being inflicted major punishment would at all entail his encashment of privilege leave and that has been answered in the case reported in UCO Bank & Ors. v. Anju Mathur, 2013 (5) SLR 518 and para-25-26 reads as under :- "25. At the outset, we are forced to remark that reasons given in Ashwani Kumar Sharma (supra) are legally correct, as the compulsory retirement by way of punishment is also treated as ordinary termination of service on which we have already given our consideration hereinabove. 26. We have also reproduced Regulation 38 of the Officers Regulations, which deals with leave encashment. This regulation states that leave shall lapse in certain circumstances. Proviso thereto, however, provides an explanation and makes a provision for leave encashment in those cases where an officer "retires" from service. The question is as to whether this retirement would mean retirement on attaining the age of superannuation or retirement caused by other modes as well, including compulsory retirement. It cannot be disputed that compulsory retirement occasioned otherwise than by way of penalty would be covered by the proviso and leave encashment would be admissible as in that eventuality also, the officer "retires" from service. However, unlike Regulation 46 of the Officers' Regulations, the cases where the retirement comes by way of penalty of compulsory retirement, are excluded. Therefore, when an officer "retires" from service, in whatever manner, he is eligible for leave encashment. However, unlike Regulation 46 of the Officers' Regulations, the cases where the retirement comes by way of penalty of compulsory retirement, are excluded. Therefore, when an officer "retires" from service, in whatever manner, he is eligible for leave encashment. In the case of O.P. Garg (supra), this issue was specifically dealt with by this Court in the following manner :- "The petitioner in the present case had been wrongly denied encahsment of leave through a careless misinterpretation of Regulation 38 and without considering its proviso. From the Regulation 38 it would be revealed that all leave lapses on resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal or termination. What this means is that on the happening of any of the above events an officer cannot insist that he should be permitted to continue in service to the extent of leave which still stood to his credit. Since leave lapses, the concerned officer must leave service. Funnily leave of an officer who dies while in service also lapse. It seems the framers of regulation probably thought that a dead person may continue on leave till the expiry of the leave to his credit, unless a regulation was framed. Be that as it may, it is the proviso to Regulation 38 which applies to the petitioner's case and has been actually discussed in Ashwani Kumar Sharma's case (supra). As regards payment of gratuity made to the petitioner of Rs. 2,17,351/- on August 16, 2001, learned counsel submitted that these amounts had been paid without interest and referred to the order Annexure P/7 dated December 29, 2003 regarding payment of simple interest @ 10% for the period July 27, 1999 to August 15, 2001 on the aforesaid gratuity amount. Although interest was paid to the petitioner at the time of release of the principal amount of gratuity on August 16, 2001, a sum of Rs. 20325 was the second installment received by the petitioner on November 17, 2004 but the second installment was paid without interest. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to 10% interest on this amount from the due date (July 17, 1999) till the actual payment made on November 27, 2004. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. 20325 was the second installment received by the petitioner on November 17, 2004 but the second installment was paid without interest. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to 10% interest on this amount from the due date (July 17, 1999) till the actual payment made on November 27, 2004. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to payment of emoluments for the period of privilege leave that he had earned (leave encashment) along with interest @ 10% from July 26, 1999 till date of payment." 5. It has been informed to this Court that taking note of the view expressed by the Larger Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court of which reference has been made a circular has also been issued by the Bank to all the Branches/Officers of the Bank dated 6-8-2015, which reads as under :- "Board of Directors in its meeting held on 20/06/2015 approved for Privilege Leave encashment to such employees/officers who are Compulsorily retired on punishment with effect from 30/04/2015." 6. After taking note of the facts brought to our notice, we too are of the view that in terms of Reg.38 of the Regulations, 1979 in a case where the delinquent has been punished with compulsory retirement his encashment of privilege leave cannot be withheld. 7. Consequently, the appeal succeeds & is hereby allowed. The order of the Ld. Single Judge impugned dated 28-7-2017 Passed in CWP-10440/2008 is quashed & set aside. The respondents are directed to release encashment of privilege leave of the deceased employee which was due & admissible to him as per his service record after its due computation with interest @ 9% per annum from the day it became due until its actual payment. The respondents are directed to ensure compliance of the order within sixty days. No cost.