AIPNBOA has raised concern over rejection of Staff Welfare Claims in Punjab National Bank. AIPNBOA has highlighted serious concerns over the rejection and recovery of staff welfare claims in the bank. Several officers have complained about unjustified rejections, repeated queries, and recovery actions on claims that were already settled earlier. Many staff welfare claims are also being blocked in the HRMS system by the Staff Welfare Claims Cell (SWCC).
Issue Raised With Executive Director (HR)
The officers’ association has taken up the matter with the Executive Director (HR) through a letter dated 12 March 2026.
The association said it has been receiving many complaints from officers regarding the functioning of SWCC and its unilateral actions. In several cases, claims are being rejected without clearly explaining the reasons.
The association has also asked its leaders and members who are facing such issues to send detailed representations so that specific cases can be taken up with the bank management.
- Punjab National Bank (PNB) was established in 1894 in Lahore, which is now in Pakistan.
- PNB was the first Indian bank started entirely with Indian capital during the British era.
- After India’s independence, the bank shifted its headquarters to New Delhi.
- In 2020, the Government of India merged Oriental Bank of Commerce and United Bank of India with PNB.
- PNB is currently one of the largest public sector banks in India with thousands of branches across the country.
Recovery of Leave Encashment in LFC (Home Town) Cases
One of the major issues highlighted relates to Leave Fare Concession (LFC) for visiting the home town. The association said several officers who availed hometown LFC during the period from 2022 onwards are now facing recovery of leave encashment. These claims had already been processed, approved and paid earlier.
However, SWCC has reopened these cases and is now demanding proof of travel. Because of this, recovery of leave encashment has been initiated and in some cases officers have also been prevented from submitting other welfare claims in the HRMS system.
Rules of LFC and Leave Encashment Explained
The association explained that as per PNB Officers’ Service Regulation 44 of 1979, officers are entitled to Leave Travel Concession in a block of four years.
This block consists of two blocks of two years each. One block is meant for visiting the home town and the other block can be used for travel anywhere in India for rest and recuperation, which may also include visiting the home town.
Officers are also allowed to encash their privilege leave up to 30 days during the overall block of four years. Alternatively, they may opt for leave encashment twice during the two-year blocks up to 15 days each within the overall four-year block.
Officers Used Own Vehicles for Short Distance Travel
The association further explained that many officers who claimed hometown LFC had their home towns within a few hundred kilometers of their place of posting.
Because of this, some officers travelled using their own vehicles or local transport and the cost involved was minimal. Therefore, they did not submit travel allowance bills and only availed leave encashment of 15 days.
However, SWCC is now demanding proof of travel even for claims related to 2022 onwards. The association said it has become practically impossible for officers to provide travel proof such as tickets or toll receipts after such a long period.
No Double Payment in Such Cases
The association also pointed out that officers are entitled to 30 days leave encashment within the four-year block anyway. If an officer has already taken 15 days encashment during the hometown LFC block without claiming travel allowance, then the remaining entitlement for the next block automatically becomes 15 days.
Even if an officer returns the 15 days encashment as instructed by SWCC, the officer cannot claim the full 30 days encashment in the next block because the second block has already expired by the time the rejection is made.
According to the association, there is no double payment involved in such cases. Therefore reopening old issues does not serve any purpose and only creates unnecessary hardship for officers.
The association said such actions amount to harassment because recoveries are being made and officers are also being blocked from submitting other welfare claims.
Fuel Reimbursement Claims of Scale-I Officers Rejected
Another issue raised in the letter relates to rejection of fuel reimbursement claims of Scale-I officers who own cars.
The association referred to HRMD Circular No. 759 dated 25 April 2024. According to this circular, all Scale-I officers other than Incumbent In-Charge or Deputy Managers who own cars are eligible for reimbursement of fuel up to their entitlement of 40 liters.
However, SWCC has been rejecting such claims stating that only Scale-I officers who own two-wheelers are eligible for fuel reimbursement. The association said this interpretation is incorrect and directly contradicts the provisions mentioned in the circular.
In some cases, when the matter was raised with the General Manager (HRT) and Chief General Manager (HR), the issues were resolved. However, similar objections continue to appear in new cases.
Other Reimbursements Also Being Denied
The association also said that several other reimbursements are being denied. These include travel on duty and diem allowances. In some cases, the amounts are either reduced or paid initially and later recovered without clearly explaining the reasons for reduction or rejection of the claims.
There are also cases where three officers took permission from the Circle Head and booked travel tickets after confirming the lowest fare. Even though the tickets were booked for the same destination at the same fare, only one claim was approved while the other two were rejected.
Issues With LTC Extension Approval
Another problem highlighted relates to the extension of LTC period.
In some cases, Circle Heads had issued letters extending the LTC period due to quarter closing work or administrative reasons. However, SWCC did not accept these letters and informed officers that only the Chief General Manager has the authority to approve such extensions.
Association Seeks Management Intervention
The association said that because of these actions, officers claiming legitimate entitlements and expenses are being treated with suspicion. According to the association, there are many such cases and the overall situation has created frustration among officers.
The association has therefore requested the Executive Director (HR) to intervene in the matter. It has urged the management to stop such strict policing of welfare claims and ensure that whenever a claim is rejected, proper and valid reasons are clearly communicated to the officers.
