{"id":6466,"date":"2015-01-14T15:01:00","date_gmt":"2015-01-14T15:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/?p=6466"},"modified":"2015-10-14T15:16:48","modified_gmt":"2015-10-14T09:46:48","slug":"employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/","title":{"rendered":"Employees voluntarily retired under any scheme would receive no subsequent raise in pension retrospectively"},"content":{"rendered":"<p ><b>Supreme Court<\/b>: Deciding the issue whether employees who had opted for voluntary retirement under the General Insurance Employee Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004,&nbsp; and subsequently retired, would be entitled to get the benefit of additional pension under the notification dated 21.12.2005 retrospectively, the division bench of Anil R. Dave and S.K. Singh JJ. held employees who had taken the benefit under the scheme and had already retired would not be entitled to additional pension due to retrospective increase in pay in pursuance to the aforesaid notification. The Court further explained that retrospective rise in salary is given to those who are in service at the relevant time or who had retired in normal circumstances and the petitioners had not retired as per normal conditions of service, therefore received some special additional benefits.<\/p>\n<p >In the instant case, respondents were in financial difficulties and framed the aforesaid scheme to reduce their expenditure and made employees eligible for pension if they retire from service after 20 years of service. In this case the counsel for the respondents contended that employees who opted for voluntary retirement, the relationship between them and employer had come to an end, therefore employees were not entitled to any additional amount of pension on the other hand the counsel for the petitioner relied on <i>National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Kirpal Singh<\/i> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2014_5_SCC_189 \">(2014) 5 SCC 189<\/a> and submitted that employees are entitled to the benefit of subsequent upward pay revision and if a retired employee is not given the benefit, the action of the employer would be violative of Article 14 of the COI.<\/p>\n<p >The Court finally held that in this, intention behind the scheme was to reduce the future expenditure of the employers and if benefits under the aforesaid notification are provided to the persons who had already retired under scheme, the real purpose of the scheme would be frustrated. On the issue that notification is discriminatory in nature, the Court held that employees who retired under the scheme form a separate class of employees and cannot be compared with employees who retire in normal course, and hence, there is no violation of Article 14 of the COI. <i>Manojbhai N. Shah v. Union of India,&nbsp;<\/i><span>2015 SCC OnLine SC 13<\/span><span>, decided on 7.01.2015<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court: Deciding the issue whether employees who had opted for voluntary retirement under the General Insurance Employee Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":7321,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-supremecourt"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Employees voluntarily retired under any scheme would receive no subsequent raise in pension retrospectively | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Employees voluntarily retired under any scheme would receive no subsequent raise in pension retrospectively\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: Deciding the issue whether employees who had opted for voluntary retirement under the General Insurance Employee Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme,\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-01-14T15:01:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-14T09:46:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/\",\"name\":\"Employees voluntarily retired under any scheme would receive no subsequent raise in pension retrospectively | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-01-14T15:01:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-14T09:46:48+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Employees voluntarily retired under any scheme would receive no subsequent raise in pension retrospectively\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Employees voluntarily retired under any scheme would receive no subsequent raise in pension retrospectively | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Employees voluntarily retired under any scheme would receive no subsequent raise in pension retrospectively","og_description":"Supreme Court: Deciding the issue whether employees who had opted for voluntary retirement under the General Insurance Employee Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme,","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2015-01-14T15:01:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-14T09:46:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/","name":"Employees voluntarily retired under any scheme would receive no subsequent raise in pension retrospectively | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","datePublished":"2015-01-14T15:01:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-14T09:46:48+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/14\/employees-voluntarily-retired-under-any-scheme-would-receive-no-subsequent-raise-in-pension-retrospectively\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Employees voluntarily retired under any scheme would receive no subsequent raise in pension retrospectively"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":259911,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/12\/pension-is-not-a-bounty-vested-rights-retrospective-amendment\/","url_meta":{"origin":6466,"position":0},"title":"Pension is not a bounty; Lack of financial resources no excuse for taking away vested rights by way of retrospective amendments: SC","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 12, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ has held that an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away the benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule indeed would divest the employee from his vested or accrued rights and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-31.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-31.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-31.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-31.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-31.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":226653,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/03\/06\/you-cant-invalidate-otherwise-valid-decision-by-virtue-of-exclusive-superior-power-to-amend-sc-to-sbi-on-unfair-amendments-in-its-vrs-scheme\/","url_meta":{"origin":6466,"position":1},"title":"You Can&#8217;t invalidate otherwise valid decision by virtue of exclusive superior power to amend: SC to SBI on unfair amendments in it&#8217;s VRS Scheme","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"March 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In a case where the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and MR Shah, JJ was hearing a reference in a plea of SBI employees seeking pension on completion of 15 years of service as per the State Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme, it was held\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":278735,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/29\/uttar-pradesh-housing-development-board-function-fixing-conditions-service-on-employees-preetam-singh-modified-supreme-court-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":6466,"position":2},"title":"UP Housing and Development Board&#8217;s function does not include fixing its employees&#8217; service conditions; SC modifies 2014&#8217;s Preetam Singh verdict","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 29, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"On 10.02.2020, a division bench had come to the conclusion that the view taken by this Court in Preetam Singh\u2019s case needs reconsideration after it prima facie found that the functions of the Board contemplated under Section 15 of the 1965 Act were wide enough even to cover the act\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-308.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":52122,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/18\/cut-off-date-of-the-contributory-provident-fund-scheme-in-the-w-b-comprehensive-area-development-corporation-employees-death-cum-retirement-benefit-regulations-2008-struck-down\/","url_meta":{"origin":6466,"position":3},"title":"Cut-off date of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme in the W.B. Comprehensive Area Development Corporation Employee\u2019s [Death cum Retirement] Benefit Regulations 2008 struck down","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 18, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court: In the matter where 71 petitioners had filed a writ application challenging the fixation of the cut-off date of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme on publication of the West Bengal Comprehensive Area Development Corporation Employee\u2019s [Death cum Retirement] Benefit Regulations 2008, I.P. Mukerji, J struck down the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":149373,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/08\/11\/employees-who-have-resigned-cannot-claim-pension-under-voluntary-retirement-scheme\/","url_meta":{"origin":6466,"position":4},"title":"Employees who have resigned cannot claim pension under voluntary retirement scheme","author":"Saba","date":"August 11, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0\u00a0A writ petition by former employees of the respondent bank who asserted that differentiating between \u2018resignation\u2019 and \u2018voluntary retirement\u2019 was bad in law and unjustified, was dismissed by a Division Bench comprising of M.S. Karnik and A.A. Sayed, JJ. The petitioners\u2019 contention was that since they had been\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276822,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/05\/amended-employees-pension-scheme-valid-provisions-read-down-applicability-explained-1-6-contribution-illegal-supreme-court-legal-research-service-law-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":6466,"position":5},"title":"Supreme Court upholds validity of amended Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme but reads down certain provisions; Explains applicability of pre &#038; post amendment Scheme","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 5, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs.15000\/- per month as an additional contribution under the amended scheme has, however, been held to be ultra vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. The Court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-8-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-8-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-8-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-8-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-8-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6466","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6466"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6466\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}