Government servants: India (legal issues, rules)
(Created page with "{| class="wikitable" |- |colspan="0"|<div style="font-size:100%"> This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.<br/>You can help by converting...") |
(→Forced early retirement) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
[[Category:Name|Alphabet]] | [[Category:Name|Alphabet]] | ||
| − | = | + | =Pension= |
| − | == Bad reputation sufficient grounds== | + | ==Right to pension can't be taken away pending proceedings: SC== |
| + | |||
| + | PTI | Aug 20, 2013 | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | NEW DELHI: Observing that gratuity and pension are hard earned benefits of an employee and right to receive pension is in the nature of "property", the Supreme Court has held that this right cannot be taken away from a government employee pending departmental or criminal proceedings. | ||
| + | |||
| + | "It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and un-blemished service. It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of "property". | ||
| + | |||
| + | "This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India," a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri said. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The court passed the judgement while dismissing the appeal of Jharkhand government against the state's high court order directing it to release the withheld dues of its retired employee Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, who had criminal cases pending against him. | ||
| + | |||
| + | "We are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner (Srivastava) to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) (of the Constitution) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same." | ||
| + | |||
| + | "...the order dated June 12, 1968 denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1)of Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable," the bench said. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It also said "a person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced." | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | =Retirement, premature= | ||
| + | ==Forced early retirement: Bad reputation sufficient grounds== | ||
Bad reputation can justify forced early retirement: HC | Bad reputation can justify forced early retirement: HC | ||
Ajay Sura TNN | Ajay Sura TNN | ||
Revision as of 10:18, 20 August 2013
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly |
Contents |
Pension
Right to pension can't be taken away pending proceedings: SC
PTI | Aug 20, 2013
NEW DELHI: Observing that gratuity and pension are hard earned benefits of an employee and right to receive pension is in the nature of "property", the Supreme Court has held that this right cannot be taken away from a government employee pending departmental or criminal proceedings.
"It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and un-blemished service. It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of "property".
"This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India," a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri said.
The court passed the judgement while dismissing the appeal of Jharkhand government against the state's high court order directing it to release the withheld dues of its retired employee Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, who had criminal cases pending against him.
"We are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner (Srivastava) to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) (of the Constitution) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same."
"...the order dated June 12, 1968 denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1)of Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable," the bench said.
It also said "a person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced."
Retirement, premature
Forced early retirement: Bad reputation sufficient grounds
Bad reputation can justify forced early retirement: HC Ajay Sura TNN
Chandigarh: An employee may be forced to retire in public interest if his/her “general reputation” is not good even without tangible material to substantiate it, the Punjab and Haryana HC has said.
A division bench passed the order on Friday while upholding the HC decision on premature retirement of Haryana Superior Judicial Services judicial officer Chaman Lal Mohal.
Mohal was entitled to work till the age of 60, but was forced to prematurely retire on January 29 after the court’s administrative judge declared his integrity as “doubtful”.
