• Investment World
• eWorld
• Brand Line
• Mentor
• Life
• Brand Quest
• The New Manager
• BL Club
• Smartbuy
• Books

Stocks

• Quotes
• SE Diary
• Scoreboard
• Open-End Mutual Fund

Cross Currency

• Rates
  
  

Shipping

• Ports
  
  

Archives

• Yesterday
• Datewise
• Resources
• In Focus
• In Depth
• Events 2007

Group Sites

• The Hindu
• The Hindu ePaper
• Business Line
• Business Line ePaper
• Sportstar
• Frontline
• The Hindu eBooks
• The Hindu Images

Our Legal Correspondent

Chennai, March 2 The Madras High Court has held that a bank employee, who resigned from service to avail the ‘non-statutory compassionate scheme’ to get a job for his son in the bank, “cannot now turn back and claim” ‘invalid’ pension on grounds of physical incapacity.

Since the apex court had upheld the ‘forfeiture’ clause in the bank’s pension regulations, the employee had not made out a case to demand ‘invalid’ pension on the basis of regulations applicable to the Indian Bank, R-2, Mr Justice K. Chandru ruled.

According to the writ petitioner (B. Veeriah, since deceased), he resigned on 30-7-1993 and requested the bank to give a job to his son on the basis of the non-statutory scheme available in the bank, and the resignation was accepted on 15-2-1994. His son was given a job on the same ground on 28-3-1994.

The bank introduced a pension scheme from 29-5-1995 under which those who retired between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993 were asked to exercise the option to come under the scheme. The petitioner on 29-6-1994 opted for the pension scheme. R-3 (Personnel Dept) rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground, inter alia, that he did not satisfy the eligibility conditions for invalid pension as per Regulation 30 of Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations.

The petitioner contended that since he had been certified by the medical board as incapacitated to do any work, he ought to have been treated as eligible for ‘invalid’ pension. The bank submitted that the resignation by an employee shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and hence he shall not be qualified for any pensionary benefits.

The judge held that as the apex court had already upheld the forfeiture clause, there was no case for the petitioner to demand ‘invalid’ pension. The writ petition would stand dismissed.

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | Human Resources | Pension Plans | Tamil Nadu

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Copyright © 2009, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line