Bank Cannot Stop Any Terminal Benefit Of Staff For Any Reason Bank staff can claim benefits even on removal from service: Apex court--Business Line 13.01.2014 BY VINSON KURIAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, JAN. 12: The Supreme Court has ruled that a bank employee can claim pension and encashment of leave even when removed from service. The case pertained to the denial of the claims of late S.K. Kool who was removed from service ‘as a measure of punishment’ by Bank of Baroda. In response to a special leave petition by the bank, Justice Chandramouli Kumar Prasad ruled on December 11 that employee’s heirs are entitled to superannuation benefits. He ordered Bank of Baroda to disburse the entire amount that the respondent is found entitled to along with interest at 6 per cent within six weeks. He did not find any merit in the bank’s appeal and dismissed it with costs of Rs 50,000 to be paid out along with other dues. The bank had argued that where cessation of service takes place on account of employee’s resignation or his dismissal/termination, all leaves to his credit lapse. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL The matter was initially referred to the Industrial Tribunal which had ruled that the denial of superannuation benefits was not legal or justified. It said that the employee is entitled to all termination benefits, such as pension, leave encashment, gratuity and commutation of pension. The bank contested this and approached the High Court of Allahabad. It did not get relief there either, and moved the special leave petition. BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT Shilpa Singh, counsel for the employee’s heirs, argued that the order of the disciplinary authority inflicting the punishment itself entitled the employee to superannuation benefits. The court noted that the bipartite settlement containing terms and conditions of service of employees provides for removal from service with pension benefits ‘as would be due otherwise under rules and regulations prevailing at the relevant time.’ “We have no doubt that employees…removed from service in terms of clause 6(b) of the bipartite settlement shall be entitled to superannuation benefits…,” it added. thehindubusinessline/industry-and-economy/banking/bank-staff-can-claim-benefits-even-on-removal-from-service-apex-court/article5570654.ece “Retirement benefits can’t be withheld pending enquiry”-The Hindu Right to receive pension is treated as right to property, says SC In the absence of any provision in the pension rules, a State government cannot withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of departmental/criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court has held. Giving this ruling, a Bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and A.S. Sikri said: “It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service. Right to receive pension was treated as right to property.” Writing the judgment, Justice Sikri said: “According to Article 300 A of the Constitution, no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. A person cannot be deprived of his pension without the authority of law. It follows that the attempt of the appellant [in this case the Jharkhand government] to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.” Referring to the contention that executive instructions had been issued by the appellant government, the Bench said: “It hardly needs to be emphasised that the executive instructions do not have statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold — even a part of pension or gratuity. So far as statutory rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such provision in these rules, the position would have been different.” In the instant case, respondent Jitendra Kumar Srivastava was sanctioned 90 per cent provisional pension pending an enquiry. The remaining 10 per cent of his pension and salary was withheld. He was also not paid leave encashment and gratuity. The Jharkhand High Court directed the State government to release the withheld pension and salary and other benefits. The present appeals are directed against this judgment. The Bench said: “We find there is no merit in the instant appeals as the impugned order of the High Court is without blemish. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed with Rs. 10,000 costs each.” Link The Hindu
Posted on: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:53:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015