JUDGMENT : Kardak Ete, J. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.C. Goswami, learned counsel for all the respondents. 2. By instituting this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the retirement benefits like gratuity, pension, leave encashment, etc. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he initially joined as a Clerk in the UCO Bank on 29.11.1971. Thereafter, he was promoted to Junior Management Grade-I in 1980 and then, to the Middle Management Grade-II in the year 1997. While the petitioner was serving as the Middle Management Grade-II Officer and posted as Manager of Rangia Branch of the said Bank, vide order dated 25.08.2007, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for certain irregularities. It is alleged that despite transfer from Rangia Branch to Rajgarh Road Branch and being relieved, continued to work as Manager and irregularly sanctioned some loans by violating the Bank’s guidelines, thereby, exposing the Bank to serious financial risks. The details of the irregularities in disbursing loans were annexed with the show cause notice. The petitioner filed his response to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension, contemplating departmental proceedings. 4. The memorandum containing Article of Charges and statement of allegations was issued and served to the petitioner and after due process, the departmental enquiry commenced and on 20.02.2008, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner to which the petitioner filed his reply. 5. On the basis of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 28.03.2008, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service which would be disqualification for future employment and other penalties against the respective charges, against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal on 09.05.2008. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.4798/2008. This Court, vide order dated 07.08.2025, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal and pass reasoned order. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal on 09.05.2008. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.4798/2008. This Court, vide order dated 07.08.2025, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal and pass reasoned order. Accordingly, the appellate authority, vide order dated 28.09.2025, has disposed of the appeal, modifying the order from dismissal from service to removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment and other penalties against each of the charges including recovery of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakh) only, from the petitioner. 6. Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has initially challenged the order of removal from service and recovery of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakh) only, from the petitioner and for the grant of retiral benefits including gratuity, pension, leave encashment, etc., now grievance is only for payment of retiral benefits in terms of the judgment and order of this Court dated 01.05.2025, in WP(C) No.5939/2014 (Sailendra Nath Kakati vs. the UCO Bank and others) . He submits that the case of Sailendra Nath Kakati (Supra) squarely covers the case of the petitioner. Therefore, similar relief may be granted to the petitioner. 7. Mr. P.C. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent Bank fairly submits that the judgment of Sailendra Nath Kakati (Supra), relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would cover the case of the present petitioner, except the interest @6% p.a., which has been directed to be paid to the petitioner in the above case, as the present petitioner has not approached the Bank as on today, whereas the petitioner in that case had approached the Bank having been found by the Court that there was a delay of seventeen (17) years, on the part of the Bank and no decision was put forth. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the judgment and order dated 01.05.2025, passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sailendra Nath Kakati (Supra). 9. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the judgment and order dated 01.05.2025, passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sailendra Nath Kakati (Supra). 9. As noted here-in-above, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.09.2015, passed by the General Manager, Personal Services Department (Appellate Authority), whereby, penalty of dismissal from the service imposed against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, has been modified to removal of the petitioner from service, which shall not be disqualification for future employment and recovery of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakh) only, from the amount payable to the petitioner. 10. When the matter is taken up today, the prayer made up by the learned Senior Counsel is only for release of the retirement benefits which is entitled to the petitioner as granted in the judgment and order dated 01.05.2025, passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case of similar nature namely- Sailendra Nath Kakati (Supra). The relevant paras of the case of Sailendra Nath Kakati (Supra), are reproduced here-in-below: “8. It is not in dispute that as per Clause-6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement, an employee can be removed from service with superannuation benefits. Clause-6(b) is reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “6. An employee found guilty of gross misconduct may : (a) …. …. …. …. (b) be removed from service with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules or regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment; or” 9. Clause-22 of the Bipartite Settlement, however, projects a contrary position which disentitle an employee removed from service from pensionary benefits. By examining the Clause-22 of the Regulations in the light of Clause-6(b) as quoted above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Kool (supra) has made the following observations:- “13. Regulation 22 of the Regulations, which is relied on to deny the claim of the employee reads as follows: “22. By examining the Clause-22 of the Regulations in the light of Clause-6(b) as quoted above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Kool (supra) has made the following observations:- “13. Regulation 22 of the Regulations, which is relied on to deny the claim of the employee reads as follows: “22. Forfeiture of service: --(1)Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits.” From a plain reading of the aforesaid Regulation, it is evident that removal of an employee shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently such an employee shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. If we accept this submission, no employee removed from service in any event would be entitled for pensionary benefits. But the fact of the matter is that the Bipartite Settlement provides for removal from service with pensionary benefits “as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time”. The consequence of this construction would be that the words quoted above shall become a dead letter. Such a construction has to be avoided. 14. The Regulation does not entitle every employee to pensionary benefits. Its application and eligibility is provided under Chapter II of the Regulation whereas Chapter IV deals with qualifying service. An employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service and fulfils other conditions only can qualify for pension in terms of Regulation 14 of the Regulations. Therefore, the expression “as would be due otherwise” would mean only such employees who are eligible and have put in minimum number of years of service to qualify for pension. However, such of the employees who are not eligible and have not put in required number of years of qualifying service shall not be entitled to the superannuation benefit though removed from service in terms of clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement. Clause 6(b) came to be inserted as one of the punishments on account of the Bipartite Settlement. It provides for payment of superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise. 15. The Bipartite Settlement tends to provide a punishment which gives superannuation benefits otherwise due. The construction canvassed by the employer shall give nothing to the employees in any event. Will it not be a fraud Bipartite Settlement? It provides for payment of superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise. 15. The Bipartite Settlement tends to provide a punishment which gives superannuation benefits otherwise due. The construction canvassed by the employer shall give nothing to the employees in any event. Will it not be a fraud Bipartite Settlement? Obviously it would be. From the conspectus of what we have observed we have no doubt that such of the employees who are otherwise eligible for superannuation benefit are removed from service in terms of clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement shall be entitled to superannuation benefits. This is the only construction which would harmonise the two provisions. It is well settled rule of construction that in case of apparent conflict between the two provisions, they should be so interpreted that the effect is given to both. Hence, we are of the opinion that such of the employees who are otherwise entitled to superannuation benefits under the Regulation if visited with the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits shall be entitled for those benefits and such of the employees though visited with the same penalty but are not eligible for superannuation benefits under the Regulation shall not be entitled to that.” 10. The law laid down in the case of S. K. Kool (supra) has been followed in another recent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vijay Kumar Handa (supra) thereby expressing a similar view in the matter. 11. There is no wrangle at the Bar that the law laid down in the case of S. K. Kool (supra) and Vijay Kumar Handa (supra) would be squarely applicable in the case of the petitioner. If that be so, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that there is no scope for this Court to accept the objection raised by Mr. Sharma placing reliance on Clause- 22 of the Regulations. On the contrary, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Kool (supra), as affirmed in Vijay Kumar Handa (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the writ petitioner, who has rendered more than 29 years of continuous service in the Bank and being otherwise eligible to receive pension under the rules, cannot be denied the benefit of pension merely by relying upon Clause-22 of the Regulation. 12. 12. For the reasons stated herein above, this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The respondent Bank is directed to compute the pension as well as other terminal benefits payable to the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein above and release the amount as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. Also considered the prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel for grant of interest. It may be correct that there was some delay on the part of the writ petitioner in furnishing some documents to the Bank so as to process the release of his retiral benefits. However, there is nothing on record to justify the delay of more than 17 years on the part of the Bank in releasing the terminal benefits or at least the admitted dues of the petitioner. In these crucial 17 years the writ petitioner has undoubtedly been deprived of the benefits of his retiral/terminal dues which was payable to him by the Bank under the rules. On the contrary, by failing to pay the amount to the petitioner the Bank has made monetary gains in the form of interest accruing on an amount which amount did not belong to the Bank. Therefore, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and by balancing the equities, it is hereby provided that the amount found due and payable to the petitioner under the order of this Court shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum, after deducting the period of six months from the date on which the same became due, till realization. It is further made clear that if the amount payable to the petitioner is not released in full within 3(three) months from today, the outstanding dues would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 04.03.2008, till realization. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs”. 11. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also on a careful consideration of the judgment and order in Sailendra Nath Kakati (Supra), I am of the view that the case of Sailendra Nath Kakati (Supra) squarely covers the case of the present petitioner. Parties to bear their own costs”. 11. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also on a careful consideration of the judgment and order in Sailendra Nath Kakati (Supra), I am of the view that the case of Sailendra Nath Kakati (Supra) squarely covers the case of the present petitioner. Thus, it would be appropriate to grant similar relief to the present petitioner, as granted to the petitioner in the above case. 12. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondents shall compute the pension and other retiral benefits payable to the petitioner and release the amount as expeditiously as possible but not later than five (5) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 13. The petitioner shall approach the respondent Bank and submit the certified copy of this order along with the requisite documents that may be required for settlement of the benefits as directed to be released here-in-above, within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today. 14. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of above. No order as to costs.