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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...