Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The petition raises a sensitive and classic judicial conundrum: Where does a genuine, conscious personal choice end, and where does administrative coercion begins?
“The Tribunal appears to have lost sight that a fact can be proved, while the negative cannot. It was up to the department to demonstrate communication.”
The High Court held that employees who have worked for six months or more in a particular year would be entitled to the benefit of annual increment and their retiral benefits would be calculated by reckoning such increment while calculating their last drawn wages.
The Bombay High Court held that employees who had rendered more than six months of qualifying service from the date of their last annual increment could not be denied the benefit of annual increment merely because they retired before 1 July.
In a writ petition challenging an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing payment of balance gratuity to a retired employee, the Court held that disputes relating to gratuity and other service benefits arise out of an employer-employee relationship and do not give rise to a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
“Petitioner did not sign the pre-receipts, mandatory for drawing salary, and also did not submit his bank details. The petitioner’s own conduct and non-cooperative attitude contributed to the delay in release of payments.”
“In the absence of any rival or competing claims, and where the identity and entitlement of the legal heirs are clearly verified, the competent authority may release retiral benefits, pensionary dues, compensation.”
Rajasthan High Court held that retiral benefits are earned by employees for their services and should not be deprived due to non-job-related legal matters.
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by Bombay High Court, whereby the Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the
Calcutta High Court held that any wrong deductions from the petitioner’s salary should not defeat the rightful claim for pension, a recognized right immediately after retirement.
Earlier, the Bombay High Court had denied her plea for reinstatement of her Employee Stock Options.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Ravi Malimath, CJ. and Vishal Mishra, J. allowed a writ petition and issued several
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of R.D. Dhanuka and S.G. Mehare, JJ., expressed that, for condoning the interruption in service, the
Supreme Court: While hearing the appeal filed by Maharashtra SRTC, the Division Bench comprising of M. R. Shah* and B. V. Nagarathna,
Tripura High Court: Akil Kureshi, CJ., dismissed a writ petition which was filed aggrieved about non-payment of gratuity and pension after retirement.
Jharkhand High Court: Dr S.N. Pathak, J., allowed the present petition, directing the respondents to make payment of the entire retiral benefits
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. allowed the petition for the payment of the retiral benefit on the ground
Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi J., allowed the petition and held that past service of the petitioner shall be taken into
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. has held that a Government servant is not entitled to make a Will of the family
Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Shekher Dhawan, J., dealt with a writ petition for the release of