Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.33 seconds)
Sbi State Bank Of India vs Jayanthi Srinivasan cites

Assistant General Manager State Bank Of ... vs Radhey Shyam Pandey on 2 March, 2020

18.However, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Raveendran, that even applying the ratio of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Pandey's case (referred herein supra) the respondent’s service after excluding six month of probation was 14 years and 9 months and therefore viewing from this angle, the respondent/writ petitioner was not eligible for the payment of pension.
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 36 - A Mishra - Full Document

Sameedha Suhas Deshpande vs Dinesh Kumar Khara And 3 Ors on 23 August, 2022

13.In the Division Bench judgement of the Bombay High Court in Mrs.Sameedha Suhas Deshpande vs Chairman, Shri Dinesh Kumar Khara and Others in W.P.No.1508 of 2021, dated 23.08.2022, which also involved the case of the very same appellant bank, held that, any reference to Rule 7(a) was only misplaced as it only points to the date on and from which a permanent employee of SBI can become a member of the pension fund and an indication cannot be missed that unless confirmed in service and without acquiring status of a permanent employee, any employee of SBI cannot become a member of the pension fund. The Honourable Division Bench further held that the date on which a permanent employee becomes the member of the pension fund has no rational nexus with regard to eligibility for pension qua the length of service rendered by such employee for SBI. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/18 W.A.No.346 of 2024 Honourable Division Bench further held that the rules governing terms and conditions of service between the employee and the bank did not indicate the period of probationary service required to be excluded.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - D Datta - Full Document

V.Vincent Velankanni vs The Union Of India on 30 November, 2022

24.He would lastly rely on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in V.Vincent Velankanni Vs. The Union of India and Others reported in (2024) 10 SCR 126, where the Honourable Supreme Court held that when it came to issue of industrial seniority the services rendered during the probation period cannot be considered and that it was mandatory for an employee to undergo training and complete probation period satisfactorily before being appointed or promoted to skill grade. This decision was rendered in the backdrop of service promotions and therefore we are unable to see how the said decision would be applied to the facts of the present case which pertains to payment of pension and eligibility alone.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document

Nazir Mohamed vs J.Kamala And Ors. on 27 August, 2020

9.He would also invite our attention to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant General Manager State Bank of India Vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey reported in 2020 6 SCC 438, Division Bench judgement of the Bombay High Court in Mrs.Sameedha Suhas Deshpande Vs. Chairman, Shri Dinesh Kumar Khara and Others in W.P.No.1508 of 2021, dated 23.08.2022 and Nazir Mohamed Vs. J.Kamala and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 4321 and the decision of the Division of the Bombay High Court in Smt.Vandana w/o Eknath Bondwe Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in W.P.No.2348 of 2017 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Vincent Velankanni Vs. The Union of India and Others in C.A.No.8617 of 2013 dated 30.09.2024.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 128 - I Banerjee - Full Document

M. Subramanian, S. Paneer Selvam, S. ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By The Union ... on 15 April, 2002

22.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Raveendran would also place reliance on our decision in R.Shanmugam vs Union of India and Others reported in MANU/TN/44492/2023. However, the said decision was pertaining to a case where the employee had rendered a service of 9 years, 5 months and 28 days and was falling short of the requisite period of 10 years and in the facts of the said case we held that services rendered in the capacity of Gramin Dak Sevak could not be considered and added to regular tenure in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/18 W.A.No.346 of 2024 the postal department. Therefore the facts of the said case do not apply to the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 65 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document

State Bank Of India And Anr vs Kuldeep Raj on 11 December, 2014

21.The Honourable Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in State Bank of India and Another vs Kuldeep Raj in Letters of Patent Appeal No.731 of 2012, dated 11.12.2014, held that, when an employee had put in 20 years of pensionable service and works for 50 years of age he was entitled to pension and further held that any ad hoc / temporary service rendered would also have to be counted towards qualifying service for grant of pension. The Honourable Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court also took a similar view with regard to interpretation of Rule 7 and Rule 22. We are in entire agreement with the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court as well as the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court and we see no reasons to differ.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - D Sibal - Full Document
1