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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...