Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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