Removal from service forfeits pension under Regulation 29, notwithstanding the disciplinary order’s general entitlement observation.

The petitioner was removed from service under Regulation 39(2)(b)(v) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2013.

The removal order recorded that he would be entitled to pension and gratuity as per his entitlement.

Although gratuity was paid, the Bank rejected his claim for pension, relying on Regulation 29 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 2018.

The petitioner sought release of pension or compassionate allowance and challenged the rejection communications dated 7 February and 4 March 2025.

1. Whether an employee removed from service is entitled to pension despite the removal order’s statement that pension would be payable as per his entitlement.

2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s pension claim was consistent with Regulation 29 of the 2018 Pension Regulations.

Regulation 29(1) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 2018 provides that an employee dismissed, removed, or terminated from service forfeits his pension.

Its proviso permits an authority higher than the authority competent to dismiss, remove, or terminate the employee to sanction compassionate allowance, not exceeding two-thirds of the pension otherwise admissible, where the prescribed conditions are met and the case merits special consideration.

Under Regulation 29(2), any compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proviso cannot be less than the minimum pension under Regulation 34.

The petitioner’s removal was imposed under Regulation 39(2)(b)(v) of the 2013 Service Regulations.

The Court found that the petitioner’s removal from service was undisputed.

It held that his pension entitlement was governed by Regulation 29 of the 2018 Pension Regulations, which provides for forfeiture of pension upon removal.

The statement in the removal order that pension would be payable “as per his entitlement” did not override that regulatory rule; entitlement remained subject to Regulation 29.

Accordingly, the Bank’s rejection of the pension claim was consistent with the applicable Regulations and disclosed no illegality warranting judicial interference.

Finding no illegality or infirmity in the Bank’s decision, it dismissed the writ petition.