Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

"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

Latest Legal News