Retirement Benefits

Supreme Court modifies retirement benefits for teacher denied appointment: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ali Hussain Ansari (2020)

/ Consequential Benefits, Judges, Retirement Benefits, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law

Supreme Court modifies retirement benefits for teacher denied appointment: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ali Hussain Ansari (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a teacher who was initially recommended for appointment but not actually appointed and later appointed after a long gap, is entitled to back wages and consequential benefits from the date of initial recommendation. CASE […]

Supreme Court modifies retirement benefits for teacher denied appointment: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ali Hussain Ansari (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Pension Scheme Cut-Off Date but Grants Relief in Exceptional Case: Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. Janak Raj Sharma (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Administrative Law, Bank Employees, Employee Rights, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Pension Law, Pension Law with Cut-off Dates, Pension Schemes, R. Banumathi, Retirement Benefits, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Pension Scheme Cut-Off Date but Grants Relief in Exceptional Case: Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. Janak Raj Sharma (2019) Date of the Judgment: 01 October 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 1189 Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a bank employee who missed the deadline to opt for a

Supreme Court Upholds Pension Scheme Cut-Off Date but Grants Relief in Exceptional Case: Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. Janak Raj Sharma (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on employee transfer after retirement: State of Bihar vs. Dr. Chaitraya Kumar Singh (2019)

/ Allocation of Employees, Bihar Re-organisation Act, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Retirement Benefits, Service Law, Transfer of Employees

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on employee transfer after retirement: State of Bihar vs. Dr. Chaitraya Kumar Singh (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee can be transferred to another state after reaching superannuation in the original state, based on a prior transfer order. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: State of Bihar & Ors

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on employee transfer after retirement: State of Bihar vs. Dr. Chaitraya Kumar Singh (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles pension eligibility for employees resigning before scheme implementation: Senior Divisional Manager, LIC vs. Shree Lal Meena (2019) INSC 217 (15 March 2019)

/ Judges, K.M. Joseph, Pension Law, Pension Rules, Pension Schemes, Ranjan Gogoi, Resignation, Retirement, Retirement Benefits, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Service Law, Service Rules

Supreme Court clarifies pension eligibility for employees resigning before scheme implementation Date of the Judgment: 15 March 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 217 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J, K.M. Joseph, J. Can an employee who resigned before a pension scheme was implemented, but after the date from which the scheme was made retrospectively

Supreme Court settles pension eligibility for employees resigning before scheme implementation: Senior Divisional Manager, LIC vs. Shree Lal Meena (2019) INSC 217 (15 March 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds University’s Right to Evict Retired Employees from Housing: Ranchi University vs. Jharkhand State Housing Board (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Contractual Obligations, Employee Rights, Eviction, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, Retirement Benefits, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds University’s Right to Evict Retired Employees from Housing: Ranchi University vs. Jharkhand State Housing Board (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether retired employees of a university can claim a right to continue occupying university-allotted housing after their retirement, based on a cancelled allotment and subsequent payment to the housing board. CASE TYPE: Civil Law

Supreme Court Upholds University’s Right to Evict Retired Employees from Housing: Ranchi University vs. Jharkhand State Housing Board (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Experience Requirement for Reader Post: University of Kerala vs. Saiful Islam (2018)

/ Appointment of Reader, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Retirement Benefits, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Experience Requirement for Reader Post: University of Kerala vs. Saiful Islam (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the experience required for appointment to the post of Reader should be pre-Ph.D. or post-Ph.D., where Ph.D. is an essential qualification. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: University of Kerala & Anr. vs. Saiful Islam.A. & Ors.

Supreme Court Clarifies Experience Requirement for Reader Post: University of Kerala vs. Saiful Islam (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Differential Dearness Relief for Bank Retirees Based on Retirement Date: United Bank of India vs. United Bank of India Retirees’ Welfare Association (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Bank Employees, Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 with Section 19(2)(f), Banking Law, Bipartite Settlement, Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 14, Dearness Relief, Judges, Pension, Retirement Benefits, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Differential Dearness Relief for Bank Retirees Based on Retirement Date LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a distinction in dearness relief can be made between pre and post-November 2002 retirees. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Pension. Case Name: United Bank of India and others vs. United Bank of India Retirees’ Welfare Association and others. [Judgment Date]: May

Supreme Court Upholds Differential Dearness Relief for Bank Retirees Based on Retirement Date: United Bank of India vs. United Bank of India Retirees’ Welfare Association (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles pension benefits for employees of reorganized states: Shakti Prasad Bhatt vs. State of Uttarakhand (26 April 2018)

/ Arun Mishra, Government Employees, Implications on Service Law, Judges, Pension Benefits, Retirement Benefits, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit, Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000

Supreme Court Rules Past Services Count for Pension Benefits in Reorganized States LEGAL ISSUE: Whether past services of employees in a bifurcated state should be counted for pension and other benefits. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Shakti Prasad Bhatt ETC. ETC. vs. The State of Uttarakhand AND ORS. ETC. Judgment Date: 26 April 2018

Supreme Court settles pension benefits for employees of reorganized states: Shakti Prasad Bhatt vs. State of Uttarakhand (26 April 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Higher Pay Scale to Pre-1996 Retired Armed Forces Officers: Suchet Singh Yadav & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (21 February 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Government Orders, Government Orders with Order dated 07.06.1999, Government Orders with Order dated 14.01.2000, Government Orders with Order dated 21.11.1997, Judges, Pay Scale, Pension, Retirement Benefits, Service Law

Supreme Court Denies Higher Pay Scale to Pre-1996 Retired Armed Forces Officers Date of the Judgment: 21 February 2018 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J. (authored the judgment) Can retired armed forces officers who retired before 01.01.1996 claim a higher pay scale based on a government order meant for

Supreme Court Denies Higher Pay Scale to Pre-1996 Retired Armed Forces Officers: Suchet Singh Yadav & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (21 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Pay Protection Appeals for Railway Employees, Leaves Legal Question Open (20 July 2017)

/ Judges, Kurian Joseph, Pay Protection, Pay Scale, R. Banumathi, Railway Service Rules, Retirement Benefits, Service Law

Can a railway employee’s pay scale and benefits be protected after retirement? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in appeals concerning a Chargeman and a Switchman. While the Court did not rule on the legal question, it ensured the employees received their benefits. This case highlights the complexities of pay protection in

Supreme Court Dismisses Pay Protection Appeals for Railway Employees, Leaves Legal Question Open (20 July 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies pension eligibility for municipal employees: Sanchari Devi & Ors. vs. Ara Municipal Corporation & Ors. (2013) INSC 467 (25 June 2013)

/ A.K. Patnaik, Employee Rights, Judges, Pension Benefits, Pension Law, Provident Fund, Ranjan Gogoi, Retirement, Retirement Benefits, Service Law

Date of the Judgment: 25 June 2013 Citation: (2013) INSC 467 Judges: A.K. Patnaik, J. and Ranjan Gogoi, J. Can a municipal corporation deny pension benefits to its employees by delaying the implementation of pension rules? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning the Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants

Supreme Court clarifies pension eligibility for municipal employees: Sanchari Devi & Ors. vs. Ara Municipal Corporation & Ors. (2013) INSC 467 (25 June 2013) Read Post »

Scroll to Top