Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J.NISHA BANU, P.DHANABAL, JJ
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I Employees Provident Fund Organization – Appellant
Versus
N.V.Krishnamoorthy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employees opted for commutation of pension post-retirement. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal interpretation of pension restoration post-commutation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding entitlement to full pension after commutation. (Para 6 , 7 , 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. recent amendments enabling restoration of full pension after 15 years. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's interpretation of pension scheme as welfare legislation. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. court confirms restoration of full pension after commutation period. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
Per J.NISHA BANU, J.
The Writ Appeals filed as against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 28.11.2019.
2. The case of the appellants-Provident Fund Department is that the respondents 1 and 3 to 9 were employed in Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam, an exempted establishment under Section 17(1)(a) of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The respondents were retired from their service in the years of 1999, 2002, 2005. After retirement, these respondents opted for 1/3rd commutation of pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 , and agreed to receive the balance 2/3rd pension on monthly basi
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
