Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

Supreme Court Upholds Terminal Benefits for Compulsorily Retired Bank Manager: "Forfeiture of Gratuity Not Envisaged in Case of Compulsory Retirement"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment dated November 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the rights of employees to terminal benefits post-compulsory retirement. The apex court, led by Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, ruled in favor of a Senior Manager from Punjab National Bank, Jyotirmay Ray, who had been denied his rightful provident fund contributions and gratuity after being compulsorily retired.

The case, which centered on the interpretation of various regulations and acts including the Punjab National Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979, and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, concluded with the Supreme Court stating, "The act of forfeiture of gratuity is not envisaged in the present case as the provisions are silent on the aspect of forfeiture in case of compulsory retirement."

Justice Maheshwari observed that the Bank's unilateral decision to deny Ray's benefits was not supported by the chargesheet or the enquiry report, as there was no recorded finding of loss caused to the Bank by Ray's actions. He noted, "In the facts as discussed, the unilateral report cannot be relied upon by the Board of Directors to deny the benefit of payment of employer’s contribution of provident fund."

The judgment has significant implications for employees facing compulsory retirement, ensuring that their rights to terminal benefits are protected. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the principle that penalties should not extend to the deprivation of an employee's earned benefits without clear justification and proper procedure.

The case was argued by Mr. Irshad Ahmad on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam represented the respondent, Punjab National Bank. The court's decision sets a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the protective legal framework for employees' post-retirement benefits.

Date of Decision: 06 November  2023

JYOTIRMAY RAY VS THE FIELD GENERAL MANAGER,PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/06-Nov-2023_Jyotirmay_Ray_Vs_Field_Manager_PNB.pdf"]

Latest Legal News