RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Shrinath Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Finance – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
1. The petitioner in the present case is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the communication as contained in letter reference no. DBGB/HO/HRD Pension/3998 dated 30.05.2019 issued under seal and signature of the Chief Manager of Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank whereby he has informed the petitioner that because of the punishment of compulsory retirement from service (CRS) awarded to him on 16.01.2018, he would not qualify for pension under Regulation 20 and Regulation 31 of the Banks (Employees) Pension Regulation dated 12.12.2018. The petitioner has prayed that after quashing of this communication dated 30.05.2019 (Annexure ‘7/1’) this Court may issue a direction to the respondent Bank for accepting the employers’ contribution of provident fund in the Banks Pension Trust account as per Regulation 3(C) of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation 2018 and Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service (Amendment) Regulation 2018 and there upon the respondent Bank be directed to make payment of pension along with 18 % interest from the date of retirement till date of actual payment.
2. The another prayer of the petitioner is to
Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat
Bank of Baroda vs. S.K. Kool (D) LRs. and Another
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 4 SCC 363 : AIR 1993 SC 43
Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. M.R. Apparao and Others
M/s Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 2293
Mamleshwar Prasad vs. Kanhaiya Lal (Dead) through L.Rs. (1975) 2 SCC 232 : AIR 1975 SC 907
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.