Skip to main content

Suspension Period to be Considered for Calculating Pension Benefits: HC

The AP High Court has made it clear that an employer should take into account the period of suspension of an employee, if suspended for any reason, for the purpose of calculating the total period of service for determining his pensionary benefits.

Justice B Chandra Kumar has recently allowed a writ petition by one V Rama Rao by revising the earlier order of the court to the effect that the period of suspension of an employee shall be counted for determining the pensionary benefits.

The judge, however, made it clear that the petitioner who was suspended from service by the SBI authorities, shall not be entitled for any monetary benefits for the suspension period, except the subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules.

In June last year, the court while disposing of petitioner’s case has directed the bank to consider the latter’s case as to whether he was entitled for pension or other retiremental benefits and to pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

In the present case, the petitioner sought review of the previous order seeking a direction to the bank authorities to count the period of suspension for the purpose of determining his pensionary benefits.

He was appointed in the bank in April 1970 and was removed from service in Nov 1996. In the removal order, the bank stated that there is no case to treat the suspension period as on duty and accordingly, he was not entitled for payment of any amount except the subsistence allowance. He was kept under suspension from Feb 1987 to Mar 1991.

The petitioner submitted that the court ought to have clarified the position with regard to the period of suspension in the order under review. The bank is taking advantage of the order since there is no specific direction with regard to the suspension period.

On the other hand, the bank authorities submitted that the petitioner was not entitled for pensionary benefits since he would not come within the eligibility criteria. An employee should have completed 25 years of pensionable service irrespective of the age and since the petitioner has not completed required service he would not be eligible for pension.

Article referred: http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/Suspension-Period-to-be-Considered-for-Calculating-Pension-Benefits-HC/2014/04/20/article2179102.ece

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even