Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Employees Not Entitled to Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that employees of the Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board are not entitled to pensionary benefits on par with state government employees. The court emphasized that the employees of the Board, established as a body corporate with specific aims and objectives, cannot be equated with state government employees in all respects.

The judgment stated, "It remains indisputable that the Regulations of 1960 governing the service conditions of the employees of the Board specifically contain the stipulation in Regulation 52 that they shall not be entitled to pension. The cited decisions on behalf of the respondents cannot be read as overriding the said Regulation 52."

The court further observed that previous decisions regarding denial of pension and non-availability of financial resources could not be applied to the present case. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the employees of the Board and state government employees, emphasizing the need to maintain this distinction.

Furthermore, the court rejected the plea to exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, stating that sympathy or sentiment alone cannot be a ground for passing an order contrary to legal rights. It emphasized that the existing Regulation 52, which specifically addresses the retiral benefits of the Board's employees, cannot be ignored.

Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board employees.

Date of Decision: March 17, 2023

 STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.  vs ORISSA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES  BOARD KARMACHARI SANGH 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/17-Mar-2023-State-vs-Odisha-Khadi.pdf"]

Latest Legal News