Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
Smt.Sharmila Ravi Kumar, vs Chairman And M.D., A.P. Bank, on 28 February, 2020 cites

Bank Of Baroda & Ors vs Ganpat Singh Deora on 18 December, 2008

14 To examine the case on hand, the competent authority had no occasion to pass any order in the light of 1995 Regulations as the petitioner availed extraordinary leave prior to the above Regulations came into force. All extraordinary leave of the petitioner was approved and that the competent authority allowed the petitioner to go on leave and thereafter permitted the petitioner to join in service and again permitted the petitioner to retire by opting for voluntary retirement scheme. The respondent Bank has settled all her terminal benefits and paid the ex-gratia, gratuity and other allowances to which she is entitled, except the pension. 15 In Bank of Baroda and Others vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (1 surpa) the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para Nos.27, 28 and 30 as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 24 - A Kabir - Full Document

United Bank Of India vs Pijush Kanti Nandy & Ors on 4 August, 2009

In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda V. Ganpat Singh Deora1 and United Bank of India V. Pijush Kanti Nandy2. 8 Learned counsel for the respondents-Bank submits that for being eligible for payment of pension in terms of the Pension Regulations of 1995, as applicable to the employees, who have opted for pension and who have retired from service of the bank under ABEVRS 2000, one has to put in a minimum of 15 years of qualifying service as on the date of voluntary retirement. He further submits that in the present case, though the petitioner had put in a total service of 15½ years of service, she did not put in the required qualifying service of 15 years for being eligible for payment of pension and therefore, respondent No.2 rightly rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of pension.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 14 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Andhra Bank vs R.Uma Maheswari on 21 November, 2019

15. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and it is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no orders as to costs. 18 The learned counsel for the respondent Bank has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court held between Andhra Bank vs. R. Uma Maheswari {W.A.No.3789 of 2019 against W.P.No.37764 of 2004 dated 21.11.2019}. In the case cited supra, the leave pertains to the period after 1995 i.e. the Regulations came into effect and the competent authority had occasion to examine the leave and communicated to the employee that the said leave will not be considered for extending the benefit of pension and his leave leads to disqualification for claiming pension. The facts of the above case are different to the facts of the case on hand and hence the said judgment is not applicable. 18 19 In the case on hand, the respondent Bank on 30.03.2001 had issued a certificate indicating that the petitioner has put in 15 ½ years of service as a clerk and is entitled to pension as per eligibility. 20 In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to pension and the impugned proceedings dated 01.09.2001 is liable to be set aside. 21 In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the second respondent in Lr.No.666/3/P/152, dated 01.09.2001 and accordingly rule nisi is made absolute. The respondents are directed to pay pension to the petitioner as per the procedure within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the due date. No order as to costs. 22 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - S Prasad - Full Document
1