Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court

"Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Pension Eligibility: 'Service of More Than Six Months to be Rounded Off as One Complete Year'"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has set a precedent in the interpretation of pension regulations, particularly impacting the cases where the computation of the service period is pivotal for pension eligibility. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, delivered the judgment on 20th March 2024, in the case of UCO Bank and Others Vs. Chaman Singh (LPA No. 96 of 2021).

The case revolved around the interpretation of Regulation No.18 of UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. The Court upheld the earlier judgment that acknowledged the respondent, Chaman Singh’s service period of 9 years, 10 months, and 5 days as equivalent to 10 years, thus qualifying him for pension under Regulation No.14. The Court noted, “In terms whereof service of less than a year but more than 6 months is to be rounded off as one completed year. This benefit of computation of service accorded to an employee under substantive provision of Regulation No.18 cannot be watered down by the proviso to Regulation No.18."

This decision underscores the Court’s stance on the importance of fair interpretation of pension regulations, ensuring that employees’ rights are not diminished by technicalities. The judgment referenced the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Indian Bank and Another Vs. N. Venkatramani, and similar provisions in Rule 49(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which state that a fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as a completed half-year for qualifying service.

The Court dismissed the appeal filed by UCO Bank, affirming the rights of the respondent to his pension. This ruling is seen as a significant step towards safeguarding the interests of employees in matters of pension and service computation. It is expected to influence similar cases, providing a clear interpretation of the pension regulations and ensuring that employees are not unfairly deprived of their pension rights due to the interpretation of service periods.

Date of Decision: 18th March 2024

EKENE GODWIN & ANR. VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Similar News