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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

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...