CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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