Back
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
H.S. Thangkhiew, J.
Anju Slong Mynso - Appellant
Versus
Meghalaya Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Represented By Its Chairman - Respondent
WP(C) No. 244 of 2018
Decided On : 14-07-2021
Voluntary Retirement Scheme - Employee Entitlements - The court disposed of the writ petition as the petitioner had already retired and the parties were directed to settle the entitlements and service benefits in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of a bank, filed a writ petition challenging the refusal of the management to agree to her request for voluntary retirement. However, during the hearing, it was informed that the petitioner had already retired.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the parties to settle the entitlements and service benefits in accordance with the law.
Issues: Refusal of voluntary retirement, entitlements and service benefits of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found it unnecessary to render a finding on the merits of the case due to the petitioner's retirement, and directed the parties to settle the entitlements and service benefits in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands disposed of, leaving the petitioner and the respondents to settle the entitlements and service benefits in accordance with the law. No order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
1. Matter taken up via Video Conferencing.
2. The petitioner, an employee of the Meghalaya Co-operative Apex Bank Limited, is before this Court assailing the refusal of the management to agree to her request to go on voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the Bank. However, during the pendency of the instant writ petition and in the course of hearing on 16.04.2021, this Court was informed that the petitioner has since retired in the normal course on 01.03.2021.
3. This Court therefore, by order dated 16.04.2021, directed the parties to place on affidavit the current situation as it prevailed on that day. Pursuant to the said order, the affidavits have since been filed placing on record the facts as directed.
4. A perusal of the affidavits reflects that the petitioner since her application for voluntary retirement, last attended office on 29.11.2017 till her retirement on 01.03.2021 due to health reasons. With regards to her terminal benefits which the petitioner is entitled to on superannuation, the respondents in their affidavit, have detailed the same at Paragraph-6 which is reproduced hereinbelow :-
“The deponent would like to place on record the terminal benefits which the petitioner is likely to get on her retirement on superannuation:-
(A) Provident Fund:
(i) Employer (Bank’s) Contribution - Rs. 17,32,655.00/-
(ii) Self Contribution - Rs. 10,52,475.00/-
Total : - Rs. 27,86,130.00/-
(B) Gratuity -Rs. 25,00,000.00/-
(C) Pension as admissible from Employees Provident Fund Organisation.
(D) Annuity Pension as provided by the Bank on superannuation over and above pension provided by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation.
(E) In addition to this, salary for leave balance, if any, shall also be paid along with the terminal benefits.”
5. In view of this development and present circumstances, it is no longer deemed necessary to enter in to, or to render a finding on the merits of the case and as such, this writ petition stands accordingly disposed of leaving the petitioner and the respondents to settle the entitlements and service benefits and/or any adjustments necessary of the writ petitioner, in accordance with law at the earliest.
6. No order as to costs.
AI
The court emphasized the need to settle entitlements and service benefits in accordance with the law upon the petitioner's retirement.
Dismissal of conditioning writ as infructuous entitles retired employee to terminal benefits without impediment.
Employees are entitled to their lawful terminal benefits, and such payments must be honored irrespective of the employer's financial difficulties.
Pension is recognized as property under Article 300-A of the Constitution, and retrospective policy changes cannot deny superannuation benefits.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
