Retiral Benefits - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules No Compassionate Job if Retiral Benefits Accepted

15Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules No Compassionate Job if Retiral Benefits Accepted

The Supreme Court ruled that for a missing person, the date of civil death is legally presumed to be after seven years from disappearance, not the date they went missing, as per Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A court decree declaring death merely recognizes this presumption without fixing an earlier date. This legal presumption is central to claims dependent on establishing the date of death. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a claim for compassionate appointment by Shubham, the son of Gulab Mahagu Bawankule, an employee of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. Gulab went missing on September 1, 2012. During the period of his disappearance, he was treated as being in continuous service and was duly retired on January 31, 2015. His family received all retiral ben...

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Power to Modify Military Conviction

27Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Power to Modify Military Conviction

The Supreme Court affirmed the Armed Forces Tribunal’s power under Section 15(6) of the AFT Act, 2007, to substitute a conviction. It held that where evidence establishes an act prejudicial to military discipline under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, the Tribunal can legally replace a more severe charge with this lesser offence and modify the sentence accordingly. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Colonel S.K. Jain, was the Commandant of the Northern Command Vehicle Depot in Udhampur. In September 2008, a contractor alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe for passing motorcycles during inspection. A trap was laid, and during a search of his office on September 27, 2008, a Board of Officers recovered an envelope containing ₹10,000 and, significantly, a quantity of old ammunition (7....

Can’t Withhold Pension for Not Vacating Govt Quarter: Supreme Court Rules for Employee

13Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Can’t Withhold Pension for Not Vacating Govt Quarter: Supreme Court Rules for Employee

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that pension and retiral dues are a statutory right, not a bounty, and cannot be withheld by the employer. The Court held that non-vacation of a government residence is not a valid justification for withholding such dues, as the right to pension is distinct from the right to occupation of service accommodation. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, a state government employee since 1980, superannuated on 30th June 2013, but his pension and retiral dues were not sanctioned or paid. Subsequently, the appellant department passed an order quashing his earlier pay revision and refixing his salary to a lower scale. This refixation was challenged and later withdrawn by the department, but the retiral dues remained unpaid, ostensibly because the respondent had ...

Supreme Court Quashes Bank’s Charge Sheet: Failure to Seek CVC Advice Ruled Illegal

4Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Bank’s Charge Sheet: Failure to Seek CVC Advice Ruled Illegal

The Supreme Court ruled that Regulation 19 of the Union Bank of India Officers’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 mandates mandatory consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) before issuing a charge sheet in disciplinary cases involving a vigilance angle. The Bank’s failure to await the CVC’s first-stage advice rendered the proceedings arbitrary and illegal, warranting quashing of the charge sheet. The Court clarified that once the Bank acknowledges a vigilance angle and seeks CVC input, it cannot unilaterally proceed without considering the advice, upholding procedural fairness in disciplinary actions. No back wages were granted, but retiral benefits were ordered to be released. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, A.M. Kulshrestha, a Deputy General Manager at Unio...