#pension rights

Andhra Pradesh High Court mandates that disciplinary proceedings against retired government employees must be concluded within four months, failing which full pension must be restored. The ruling reinforces natural justice and timely adjudication under Article 226, impacting service law and pension rights of retired public servants.

Bombay High Court reinforces that government employees absorbed into Zilla Parishad service before the 01.11.2005 cut-off date are entitled to Old Pension Scheme benefits, quashing orders that denied such rights. The ruling underscores the binding nature of the cut-off date for pension eligibility under administrative law.

Rajasthan High Court rules that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against an employee after superannuation, staying a 50% pension cut. The judgment reinforces that pension rights are protected under service law, impacting retired employees facing post-retirement disciplinary actions.

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that decades of uninterrupted government service cannot be nullified by the state’s own failure to preserve service records. This decision protects retired employees from punitive administrative negligence, affirming that procedural lapses by the employer cannot override substantive rights earned through long-term public service.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a Labour Court's classification of an employee as permanent entitles them to pension under the old regime, regardless of NPS deductions or lack of sanctioned posts. This decision reinforces that judicial classification prevails over administrative pension schemes, ensuring pensionary benefits for workers classified as permanent.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that self-made, unverified entries in a peon book-without official acknowledgment or corroboration-cannot satisfy the burden of proof for pension eligibility. This reinforces that statutory pension claims require authentic, contemporaneous documentation, not internal administrative notes, affecting all government and public sector employees relying on informal records to assert vested rights.

Allahabad HC rules that recovery of excess salary paid over two decades without fraud or misrepresentation is inequitable and violates Article 21, treating pension as earned property. The judgment bars retrospective adjustments absent procedural fairness, impacting retired government employees.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that retired managerial employees, even if absorbed from a predecessor bank with pension entitlements, cease to be 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act upon retirement. This means they cannot invoke industrial dispute mechanisms for pension claims after service ends, reinforcing that statutory protections under the ID Act are tied to active employment status and not post-retirement benefits.

Bombay High Court holds that pensionary benefits, once earned through service, cannot be withheld due to post-retirement caste certificate invalidation. The ruling protects retirees from administrative actions taken after superannuation, reinforcing the principle of service continuity and vested rights under service law.

The Bombay High Court ruled that BSNL cannot withhold pensions of retired employees merely for failing to submit caste certificates if no statutory adjudication occurred during service. This affirms that pension entitlements are not contingent on post-retirement documentation unless a formal, prior order invalidated the claim - protecting thousands of retired government workers from arbitrary denial of benefits.

The Supreme Court has ruled that paying higher dearness allowance to serving employees than dearness relief to pensioners, despite both compensating for the same inflation, constitutes arbitrary classification under Article 14. This landmark decision mandates uniform inflation adjustment for all public sector beneficiaries, impacting millions of pensioners across state and central governments.

The Jharkhand High Court ruled that reinstatement of wrongfully terminated government employees extends to their legal heirs, who are entitled to full pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity, and other consequential benefits, even if the employee dies post-reinstatement. The judgment reinforces the precedent set in L.P.A. No. 254 of 2022, ensuring continuity of entitlements for dependents.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that a parent receiving substantial pensions (Rs. 55,216/month) is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, as financial independence negates the legal obligation. The ruling clarifies that dependency, not mere filial duty, is the threshold for maintenance claims by parents.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the state cannot delay pension payments due to funding shortages, ordering completion of all administrative steps within 14 weeks and payment within four weeks thereafter. This sets a binding precedent for all government departments handling pension liabilities, affirming that constitutional rights to timely social security override bureaucratic fiscal excuses.

Government employees retiring on June 30 are entitled to the annual increment due on July 1, even if it falls after retirement, as held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court citing Supreme Court precedent in C.P. Mundinamani. This ruling ensures pensioners receive the full benefit of earned increments, impacting thousands of state employees and reinforcing the principle that accrued rights cannot be forfeited due to administrative timing.