Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

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