‘Pensionary benefits to employee who is removed from service for misconduct not at par with those who retire on superannuation’


The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court within the case Bashir Ahmad Wani v Jammu and Kashmir Grameen Bank and Another lately noticed and said that an employee who is removed from service for misconduct is not at par with those who is being retired on superannuation.
The bench comprising of Justice Sanjeev Kumar noticed whereas dismissing the pension declare made by a former employee of the J&Ok Grameen Bank, who was removed from service in 2011.
In the current case, the petitioner had sought advantage of the J&Ok Grameen Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 2018 whereby provision was made for terminal benefits.
However, the courtroom disallowed the claims on two grounds:
Firstly, that at the time of removing of the petitioner from service when there have been no norms, guidelines or laws offering for the advantage of pension to the workers of the respondent-Bank.
In the 12 months 2011, the workers of the respondent-Bank had been ruled by the J&Ok Grameen Bank ( the Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010… it is abundantly clear that it does not prescribe imposition of a penalty of removing alongside with the pensionary benefits.
Secondly, it was opined by the courtroom that although the 2018 Regulations had been made relevant to those workers who had been in service between 1st day of September, 1987 and thirty first day of March, 2010 and the workers retired from the companies of the Bank earlier than thirty first day of March, 2018, nevertheless, this leeway can not come to support of the Petitioner.
The Curt noticed that the explanation for discovering that the Petitioner was not an employee who had “retired” on superannuation from the financial institution. Rather, he was “removed” for misconduct.
The Court said that the laws apply to those workers who retired from the service of the Bank earlier than 31.03.2018 and not the workers who had been terminated for misconduct. Viewed thus, the order of removing of the petitioner dated 02.09.2011 holding the petitioner entitled to terminable benefits and can’t, by any stretch of reasoning, be construed to be an order of removing with the advantage of the pension. Neither, the petitioner, at the time of his removing from service, nor with the promulgation of Pension Regulations of 2018, is entitled to the advantage of pension.
Accordingly, the courtroom dismissed the petition.

Leave a Comment