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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

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...