Surjit Singh vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 14 August, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 09 September,2026
th
Uploaded on: 09 September,2026

# CNR No: DLHC010664922005
+ W.P.(C) 17556/2005
SURJIT SINGH
SR. Manager (Scale III)
Punjab & Sind Bank
NIT, Faridabad (HR) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Gupta, Mr. Khushal Singh
and Mrs. Keerti Gupta, Advocates.
versus
1. PUNJAB & SIND BANK
Through Its Chairman-cum
Managing Director,
21, Rajendra Place,
New Delhi. ...Respondent No.1

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL)
21, Rajendra Place,
New Delhi. ....Respondent No.2

3. UNION OF INDIA
Ministry of Finance
Through Addl. Secretary, (Finance)
Department of Banking,
Jeevan Deep Building,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi. .....Respondent No.3
Through: Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. Niraj Kumar
and Mr. Sourabh Mahla, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
W.P.(C) 17556/2005 Page 1 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
16:44:29

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed on behalf of the Petitioner for issuance of a writ / order / direction to
the Respondents for awarding out-of-turn promotion in terms of the
Guidelines of the Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division),
Government of India, dated 14.10.1991, regarding compensation to bank
employees who actively resist bank robberies and terrorist attacks on banks.
2. The Petitioner, was posted as Senior Manager (Scale-III) at Punjab &
Sind Bank, Roshan Pura, Najafgarh Branch in the year 1998. Since it was a
high-risk branch, two armed guards were provided for the safety of the Bank
and the customers. An unprecedented incident of robbery occurred on
28.12.1998 at about 01:00 PM, when five robbers, armed with automatic
weapons, entered the Bank premises and threatened the staff and customers
present there and started looting the cash. The guards, rather than attempting
to foil the action of the robbers, surrendered themselves and handed over
their weapons to them and allowed a free hand in looting the cash from the
Branch, which was about Rs.40,00,000/- at the counter and in the chest at
that time.
3. The Petitioner was also surrounded by the robbers, while he was in
the cabin. He picked up the telephone to seek help, but on seeing him do so,
the dacoits broke open the glass of the cabin. Due to the timely action of the
Petitioner, he was able to telephone for help. Though in the process, the
dacoits had pointed a revolver at him, the Petitioner, without caring for the
W.P.(C) 17556/2005 Page 2 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
16:44:29

threat to his life, pressed the Emergency Alarm Button, which sounded the
alarm, and the robbers panicked and ran towards the door.
4. The Petitioner pushed the door and blocked the way with a view to
save the cash from being taken away by the robbers. The bag fell on the
floor and the bundles of currency notes got scattered, and the robbers were
only able to take away Rs.75,000/- out of Rs.40,00,000/-, in the bag. In this
process, the Petitioner was able to save the cash bag containing the looted
money, which was in the hands of the robbers.

5. Because of the prompt and timely action taken by the Petitioner, who
acted with exemplary bravery without caring for the risk to his life, he was
able to save valuable public money lying in the Bank. His efforts were
lauded by the Police, television and other media, and his superiors, who also
recommended him for the award as well as out-of-turn promotion , in terms
of the guidelines of the Government of India dated 14.10.1991. The General
Manager of the Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Ashram, issued a letter
dated 17.01.2000 to Respondent No.2, recommending the name of the
Petitioner for the award.
6. Not only this, the Petitioner himself wrote a number of letters to
Respondent No.1, for grant of the award. However, the Petitioner was
informed vide Letter dated 03.10.2001, by the Personnel Department /
Respondent No.1 that the award and compensation had been declined,
without giving any cogent reasons, on vague grounds.
7. Various letters dated 12.03.2002, September, 2001, 18.04.2004,
18.05.2004 and 11.01.2005 were written by the Petitioner, but with no
result. He also made a representation to the President of India, but no reply
was received therefrom. However, the letter was forwarded to Respondent
W.P.(C) 17556/2005 Page 3 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
16:44:29

No.1 by the Private Secretary to the President of India, vide letter dated
11.06.2002.
8. Not only this, even the All India PSB Officers Union (Regd.) also
lauded the Petitioner’s action in resisting the robbery in the Bank and
requested Respondent No.1 to award him compensation, for his exemplary
act of bravery. However, no reply was received from the Respondent.
9. Therefore, the Petitioner served a Legal Notice dated 09.02.2005. A
Reply dated 09.03.2005 was received from Respondent No.1, wherein it was
stated that the request of the Petitioner for granting him compensation and
reward was denied, as he was not involved in actively resisting the robbery .
It is claimed that the award has been declined on such vague and frivolous
ground.
10. Another Rejoinder Notice dated 27.04.2005 was sent, but again the
benefits of compensation and reward were denied to the Petitioner.
11. The Petitioner thus, sought an award and out-of-turn promotion /
compensation, in terms of the guidelines dated 14.10.1991 with
consequential benefits on account of the exemplary bravery shown by him
in preventing the robbery in the Bank on 28.12.1998.
12. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, in their Counter Affidavits , submitted
that the Petitioner, being the Bank Manager of the Branch, had overall
administrative control of the Branch and it was his duty to act in the interest
of the Bank. Accordingly, he had pressed the alarm button, because of
which the robbers panicked and ran away with Rs.75,000/-. It was asserted
that such an act of the Petitioner cannot be termed an act of bravery, since
the Petitioner was only performing his duty. He merely did what a
reasonable and prudent man, would do under these circumstances.
W.P.(C) 17556/2005 Page 4 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
16:44:29

13. In regard to the guidelines of the Government of India dated
14.10.1991, it is stated that they are merely Guidelines, which prescribe out-
of-turn promotion to persons who successfully foil the robbery attempt,
subject to satisfying the minimum conditions of eligibility. The Petitioner
could not be considered for any out-of-turn promotion as per these
Guidelines, in the given circumstances.
14. On merit, while the factual narration of the robbery and the fact that
the robbers were able to take away only Rs.75,000/- were not denied, it was
stated that the Petitioner was not entitled to any reward / out-of-turn
promotion/compensation, in terms of the Guidelines dated 14.10.1991.
15. The Petitioner, in his Rejoinder Affidavit , reaffirmed his assertion
as made in the Petition and denied that he was not entitled to out-of-turn
promotion / compensation.
16. Written Submissions were filed on behalf of the Petitioner as well
as the Respondent / Bank, which were essentially on similar lines as the
assertions made in the Petition and the Counter Affidavit.
Submissions heard and record perused.
17. The facts in this case are not a scene from a movie or a chapter in a
book, the real-life incident which happened at the PSB Bank, Roshanpura,
Najafgarh. A day light robbery was attempted by five-armed robbers in the
Bank and was foiled by the Petitioner, who was posted as the Senior
Manager. He emerged as the hero of the entire incident, but unfortunately
was pushed into anonymity and red-tapism of the bureaucratic procedures.
18. It is not in dispute that on 28.12.1998 by five-armed robbers, who
entered the Branch. The circumstances have been explained in detail by the
Petitioner in his Letter dated 17.01.2000, written by the General Manager,
W.P.(C) 17556/2005 Page 5 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
16:44:29

Head Office Personnel Department, Rajendra Place, New Delhi, and further
Letter dated September, 2001 and also in an Appeal Letter dated
12.03.2002. The facts find a reiteration in the Letter dated 11.02.2004
written by the All-India Punjab & Sind Bank Officers’ Union recommending
the reward to the Petitioner for resisting the robbery on 28.12.1998.
19. In various letters, the entire sequence, as it took place on 28.12.1998,
has been explained. It was explained that on 28.12.1998 at about 13.15
hours, five-armed robbers with automatic weapons, entered the premises of
the Bank Branch at Roshan Pura, Najafgarh. The two guards, posted at the
Branch, did not resist and surrendered and handed over their weapons to
the robbers.
20. The robbers then ordered the public, which was about 40 customers;
to hide under the counters . Two of the five robbers walked towards the
Cashier’s cabin, the Paying Cashier and the Teller left their cabins. The two
robbers then went to the Receiving Cashier and asked him to put all the
money in their bag, who did as told and put the cash in the bag.
21. The two robbers with guns, placed themselves on two sides of the
Bank Manager’s cabin, where the Petitioner was present, and asked him for
the cash keys of the ‘strong room’. He tried to reach the telephone to call for
help, on which one of the robbers, broke open the glass pane of his cabin
and pointed revolver at him. The second robber put his gun on the temple of
the Petitioner. The fifth robber was positioned at the outlet of the Branch.
22. Despite being put in such a life-threatening situation, the Petitioner
maintained his courage and composure and pressed the hooter, while he was
standing. On the ringing of the hooter, the two robbers panicked and tried to
get away with the bag filled with cash of about Rs.40,00,000/-. They ran, but
W.P.(C) 17556/2005 Page 6 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
16:44:29

the Petitioner pushed the door closed, which caused an obstacle in the
running of the fleeing robbers. In the process, their bag got stuck and the
money spilled out of the bag, which got caught in the door. The bundles of
money spilled on the floor and they were able to escape, with only
Rs.75,000/- of the Bank's cash.
23. The entire chain of events, which have not been contradicted by the
respondent, clearly reflects that the Security Guards, who were deputed with
the responsibility of protecting the Bank from such armed robbery, gave in
and surrendered their weapons. The cashier also complied with the demands
of the robbers by putting the cash in their bag, which was about
Rs.40,00,000/-.
24. It is only the Bank Manager/petitioner, despite faced with guns
pointed at him by two robbers, unmindful to his personal safety, like a
soldier on the border, was driven by the sense of commitment towards the
Bank and demonstrated presence of mind and unprecedented courage, in call
of duty. He, without fearing for his life, had the courage to press the hooter
button despite the guns pointing at him, which resulted in foiling of the
robbery. Not only this, he by pushing the cabin door, even tried to obstruct
the robbers from escaping. In the process, the money spilled from the bag
and they were able to take away only Rs.75,000/- cash, even though about
Rs.40,00,000/- was filled in the bag.

25. The courage inspired by the dedication and concern for the safety of
the customers and the cash attempted to be robbed, needs to be
acknowledged, given the fact that any resistance as shown by the petitioner,
could have triggered the robbers to shoot the Petitoner. What would have
W.P.(C) 17556/2005 Page 7 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
16:44:29

then followed, is probably a posthumous Commendatory Certificate and few
words of empty sympathy to the family members.
26. The Petitioner, fearing for his life, could have also surrendered like
the other Bank officials and Security Guards, and let the robbery take place.
However, it was his sense of duty, commitment, courage and presence of
mind that enabled him to resist the robbery. It is simple to say that it was
merely a Hooter button that was pressed by him, but that itself was a game
changer. He did so, despite the risk of being shot by the robbers. There was
also a likelihood of his being harmed by the robbers, after the Hooter was
blown, while they were leaving.
27. Such act of bravery and presence of mind, has ironically been termed
by the Bank, as a part of his duty. It is not only a trivialisation of the
extraordinary and exemplary courage shown by the Petitioner, but is almost
an insult to a person, who had put his life at risk.
28. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the Government of India
Guidelines dated 14.10.1991, which read as under:
“vi) In case of bank employees and customers / members
of public who actively resist bank robberies and terrorist
attacks on banks, the banks may consider a cash reward
not exceeding Rs.50,000/-. In addition, bank employees
may be given an out of turn promotion, if they satisfy the
minimum conditions of eligibility prescribed for direct
recruits to the post but without reference to the number of
years of service rendered. Employees not covered by the
above criterion, may be allowed three advance increments,
in their existing grade on a permanent basis.
vii) All expenses for treatment of injury including
hospitalization of the victim including bank employee,
members of public / members of police forces etc. shall be
borne by the bank.
W.P.(C) 17556/2005 Page 8 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
16:44:29

viii) The cash reward mentioned in clause (vi) above, will
be in addition to the compensation, if any, to which the
person may be entitled to under the provisions of various
Acts / Rules governing him / her .”
29. From the guidelines, as reproduced above, it is evident that any
endeavour by a Bank Official to foil the robbery by pressing the hooter , is
not a routine act, nor is it a part of his duty . The Guidelines recognize
active resistance to bank robberies, as an act warranting consideration for
a cash reward of up to Rs.50,000/-. In addition, a bank employee may be
given out-of-turn promotion, subject to his satisfying the minimum
conditions of eligibility prescribed for direct recruits to the post. If found not
eligible, he may be allowed three advance increments, in their existing
grade on a permanent basis he
30. On the facts as established from the record and the Letters and
documents of the respondents as well, the action of the Petitioner cannot be
characterized, as a mere discharge of his routine duties. His conduct in
pressing the emergency alarm despite being confronted by armed robbers,
followed by his act of blocking the door to prevent their escape with the
cash, constituted active resistance to the robbery , within the meaning of
Clause (vi) of the Guidelines dated 14.10.1991.
31. Once the Bank and the Government itself acknowledged such acts of
courage; instead of applause, appreciation, and acknowledgement in terms
of Guidelines, indeed it was trivialization on the part of the Government, to
disregard its own Guidelines and frivolously reject such requests the
representations of the Petitioner as well as of the PSB Officers’ Union and
of the senior officers, by claiming that the circumstances did not fall within
W.P.(C) 17556/2005 Page 9 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
16:44:29

the Guidelines . There can be no more blatant violation of their own
Guidelines, than in the present case.
32. It is unfortunate that despite the exemplary conduct of the Petitioner,
instead of the Bank and the Government itself rewarding the Petitioner, if
not more, in terms of the Guidelines, they added insult to injury by asserting
that it was not covered by their Guidelines. Such conduct is not becoming of
the Bank, which itself, in fact, should have rewarded and acknowledged the
Petitioner for his exemplary conduct , rather than driving him to seek reward
to which he was entitled . It has taken him since 28 years to get the
validation of his act.
33. Indeed, it is a situation where the system needs to apologise to him for
such indifference and callousness shown to him. The entire system who has
failed the Petitioner needs to apologise to the petitioner. Mere empty words
of regret or saying sorry, is not apology. It entails genuine
acknowledgement, acceptance of wrong, with shame for the wrong-doing,
which necessarily has to be manifested by reparation, restitution and
compensation for having been driven to suffer the litigation for over 28
years.
34. It is the resilience of the Petitioner, who undaunted by the arduous
task of fighting the mighty system, has taken the respondent by the horns,
and has not let the time discourage him in his fight for right. The question
herein, is not of money, but of the honour, which should have come to him,
on its own, without litigation. In the circumstances as detailed above, it is
evident that the Petitioner, who has been driven to assert his entitlements
from 1998 till the filing of the Petition and even thereafter, cannot be
compensated enough by any amount of money.
W.P.(C) 17556/2005 Page 10 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
16:44:29

Conclusion:
35. Therefore, the Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in terms of Clause (vi) of the Guidelines
dated 14.10.1991, along with interest at the rate of 12% compounded
annually, from the date of the incident, i.e. 28.12.1998, till the date of
actual disbursement. The costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- is also awarded, towards
the cost of litigation. The Respondents shall disburse the aforesaid amounts
to the Petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of this Order.

36. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed . Pending Applications are
also disposed of, accordingly.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 9, 2026/ R
W.P.(C) 17556/2005 Page 11 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
16:44:29