Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
In cases of discharge and reinstatement, continuity of service is deemed to be maintained unless explicitly denied, ensuring pension rights are protected. ["Y.P. SETHI VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA - Delhi"] emphasizes, the legal consequence of reinstatement is deemed continuity of service, unless expressly denied, supporting the view that past service cannot be forfeited post-reinstatement.
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Union of India VS Anupam Biswas - Calcutta"]- ["Chief Executive Officer, Vita Nagar Parishad VS Tanaji Ramchandra Kadam - Bombay"]- ["Chander Shekhar Bali vs Public Work Department (r&b) - Central Administrative Tribunal"]- ["The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs Niranjan Adhikari & Anr. - Calcutta"]- ["THE ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR Vs DR. MADHU BHARDWAJ - Delhi"]- ["Shyam Nandan Singh VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]- ["Devdutt Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["INDIAN BANK EMPLOYEES UNION vs THE PRESIDING OFFICER - Madras"]- ["SUNITA DEVI ALIAS SUNITA RANI Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Kasi Raju VS Chief Manager - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Maya Devi, wife of Late Shankar Kachhap VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]- ["State of Gujarat vs Gangarambhai Shivabhai Patel - Gujarat"]- ["Y.P. SETHI VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA - Delhi"]
In the realm of employee benefits, few topics spark as much debate as pension entitlements. Many workers believe that their years of dedicated service should never be overlooked, especially when it comes to pensions. A common question arises: Can past service be denied for pension by citing a settlement? This query often surfaces in cases involving bank employees or public sector workers who resigned before key statutory settlements introduced pension schemes replacing Contributory Provident Fund (CPF).
This blog post dives deep into relevant legal precedents, primarily from Indian courts, to clarify this issue. We'll examine Supreme Court findings, distinctions between resignation and voluntary retirement, and insights from related cases. Note that while this provides general insights, it is not legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your specific situation.
Contrary to the notion that past service cannot be denied for pension purposes by citing a settlement, key legal documents indicate otherwise. Employees who resigned prior to a statutory settlement leading to pension regulations are typically not entitled to benefits under those subsequent regulations. This allows denial based on timing relative to the settlement. M. R. PRABHAKAR VS CANARA BANK - 2012 7 Supreme 397
For instance, in a pivotal Supreme Court case involving Canara Bank employees, appeals were dismissed for those who had resigned and been relieved before the statutory settlement that birthed the Canara Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. The court held: Appellants resigning prior to settlement leading to Regulations 1995 - Not entitled to its benefits. (Para 20) M. R. PRABHAKAR VS CANARA BANK - 2012 7 Supreme 397 The final result: There is no merit in these appeals... Appeals dismissed. M. R. PRABHAKAR VS CANARA BANK - 2012 7 Supreme 397
This ruling directly permits denying past service benefits for pension by citing pre-settlement resignation, countering any blanket prohibition.
The cornerstone case addressed claims for pension in lieu of CPF by pre-settlement resigners. A Single Judge initially allowed the claims, but the Division Bench reversed it, a stance upheld by the Supreme Court. Claim of the appellants, who resigned and stood relieved prior to statutory settlement, for pension in lieu of CPF was allowed by the Single Judge but the Division Bench held otherwise. M. R. PRABHAKAR VS CANARA BANK - 2012 7 Supreme 397
This reinforces that scheme applicability is strictly post-settlement, disqualifying earlier exits.
Pensions are not absolute. Courts emphasize: Pension is a right attached to the office and cannot be denied arbitrarily, yet entitlement demands proof under relevant rules. Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan VS State Of Maharashtra - 1996 6 Supreme 293 Similarly, employees must show compliance with schemes, where pre-settlement timing acts as a valid barrier. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala VS Mangal Singh - 2011 4 Supreme 1
While the core ruling supports denial for pre-settlement resignations, other precedents highlight scenarios where past service may be counted, providing contrast and exceptions.
Temporary service and interruptions: In a Maharashtra case under Civil Services (Pension) Rules, temporary service was counted despite a break, as interruptions beyond the employee's control (under 5 years) could be condoned. The court upheld: The respondent's temporary service was directly connected to his subsequent regular appointment. State of Maharashtra VS Vitthal Tulshiram Jadhav - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 1841
Change in rules favoring pro-rata pension: A tribunal ordered reconsideration of prior options when qualifying service dropped from 33 to 20 years, rejecting barriers like past service counting if not explicitly stated. Deepak Kumar Sinha vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13400
Absorption and prior service recognition: For aided school employees, past service in pensionable posts was counted post-absorption, even with management changes: Once the past service has been recognised for the purpose of pay, there appears to be no justification for denying them the same benefit towards pension. Radhe Shyam Garg VS State of Haryana - 2015 Supreme(P&H) 530
Discharge vs. retirement: Discharge with superannuation benefits does not equate to retirement, barring pension under strict regulations. Punjab National Bank VS Jayendra N. Shah - 2024 Supreme(Guj) 636
Re-employment distinctions: Past service opted for monetary benefits elsewhere cannot count toward new government pension. Union of India VS S. D. Pradhan - 2014 Supreme(Del) 1953
These cases illustrate that while breaks, absorptions, or rule changes may allow counting past service, they do not override settlement-specific disqualifications like pre-resignation timing. M. R. PRABHAKAR VS CANARA BANK - 2012 7 Supreme 397
In disability or superannuation discharge cases, entitlements hinge on being on rolls on crucial dates, but audit objections require notice—absent here in settlement scenarios. Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd. VS V. Siva Kumar - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 937
Legal professionals should emphasize: Claims succeed by demonstrating scheme fit; pre-settlement cases rarely do.
Past service can be denied for pension by citing settlement, particularly for pre-settlement resignations, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. M. R. PRABHAKAR VS CANARA BANK - 2012 7 Supreme 397 Pensions remain valuable rights, but tethered to regulatory timelines and conditions—not immune to forfeiture principles. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala VS Mangal Singh - 2011 4 Supreme 1Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan VS State Of Maharashtra - 1996 6 Supreme 293
Related cases show flexibility for interruptions or absorptions, yet reinforce that specific scheme rules govern. Employees facing denial should review their exit circumstances meticulously.
Disclaimer: This analysis draws from cited precedents and offers general information only. Pension laws vary by employer, scheme, and facts—seek personalized legal counsel.
The learned Tribunal observed that the lien was never revoked and, therefore, in calculating the qualifying service for pension, the deputation period cannot be ignored. ... As such, there was no requirement to take recourse to Rule 88 of the Pension Rules. Quoting Rule 26(2) of the Pension Rules, the learned Tribunal noted that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service, if it is tendered with proper permission. ... Additionally, Rule 26(2) states that....
The endevour on the part of the petitioner to wriggle out of the liability to pay the pension, banking upon the settlement arrived at between the parties, in an earlier proceeding whereunder it was stipulated that the respondents’ past service rendered on daily wage basis would not be counted for any ... Firstly, the respondents were absorbed on the establishment of the petitioner pursuant express terms of settlement, which clearly provided that the past services rendered on daily wage....
This Court is of the considered opinion that once the order of dismissal has been replaced with the order of discharged from service with superannuation benefits, the petitioner cannot be denied with the subsequent benefits of grant of pension which are available to the similarly situated other employees ... Forfeiture of service: (1) Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past#HL_EN....
The Tribunal cannot be oblivious to the fact that pension cases are processed at the institutional level, and maintenance of service books, transfer of records, and verification of past service are primarily administrative functions. ... According to the respondents, the applicant having failed to satisfy this statutory requirement, cannot claim the benefit of clubbing his past service. ... e) The applicant was due to retire in February 2021 and, a....
of counting of past service. ... Since this circular dated 19th February, 1987 does not say anything about counting of past service as the barrier for grant of pro-rata pension, the respondents cannot contend that the applicant is disentitled to grant of pro-rata pension simply because he had exercised the option ... From the judgment of Govind Kumar (supra), it does not appear that counting of past service was an obstacle in granti....
The effect is that upon regularisation, the Pension Rules become applicable and Rule 17 requires that past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account for calculating pension. ... Further, the option to exercise option cannot be granted to the petitioner now after when he has already retired from service. Consequently, he is not entitled to count his contractual service towards his pensionable service for want of option under Rule 1....
He would further submit that there is long gap of two years in the two appointments and therefore, Respondent's past services cannot be counted even for the purposes of pension. ... The Petitioner-State however rejected Respondent's case vide order dtd. 27/9/2018 holding that his past services cannot be counted considering long break in service. 6. ... The Tribunal has granted limited relief of computation of past service for pension#HL_END....
In the said case, after termination under Clause 6(b) of Settlement, 2002, pension was denied and the Court has finally held that after punishment, he has rightly been denied for the pension. 7. ... Also existing Pension optees cannot revoke their option from pension to CPF.” 13. ... It is the case of petitioner that he is having qualifying service of 10 years, which was not denied in the counter affidavit. ... Bin....
No. 716 of 2017 and other analogous cases, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his pensionary rights and admittedly the past service rendered by the petitioner has to be counted for the purpose of pension and other consequential benefits. ... It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied.” 12. ... It is earned for rendering a long and satisfactory service. It is in the nature of deferred payment for the past services. ... bu....
As per clause 22(2) of Indian Bank's Pension Regulations, an interruption in the service of the employee entails forfeiture of his past service except authorized leave etc. ... Clause 22 of the Indian Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 speaks about “Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary....
S.N. PATHAK, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the part of the orders of appointment dated 15.10.2019, 17.10.2019 and 18.10.2019, whereby although the respondents have accepted the services of the petitioners in regular establishment, but treating them as fresh appointees have deprived the petitioners from getting pensionery benefits. Hence, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to count their services from the date of their initial engagement i.e. from the year 1988-89 and ther....
One more aspect that has to be seen is that no orders have been passed by the first respondent, refusing pension to the petitioner citing reason that the petitioner was on leave on loss of pay as on 01.09.1998, the crucial date for payment of pension. Even assuming that there was an audit objection, the petitioner should have been put on notice about the same and thereupon, orders would have been passed refusing the pension to the petitioner. Thereupon, the first respondent, after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 18.04.2001, discharged the petitioner from service by an ord....
The admitted position is that the petitioners had served the Board which is virtually an instrumentality of the State for long period from 10 to 16 years before their absorption in Govt. service. Once the past service has been recognised for the purpose of pay, there appears to be no justification for denying them the same benefit towards pension etc. The benefit of their past service towards pay was duly protected. The denial of the benefit claimed by the petitioners would cause them a heavy recurring loss.
It was decided that once the applicant has exercised his option for retention of the monetary benefits qua the past service, it could not be counted towards the Government Service for the purpose of pension. It is also a fact that the applicant’s request to consider adding of his past service with his erstwhile employer i.e. the Punjabi University to that in NSCS was declined.
Prior to 1.1.1990 the Chowkidar was not governed by Bihar Service Code and, therefore the 1st respondent cannot seek to count his past service for the purpose of pension. Learned Single Judge did not keep in view that the 1st respondent had become Government servant only with effect from 1.1.1990 and previously he was not working against any substantive or officiating post. If the respondent is not entitled to count his past service, having superannuated from service on 31.12.1997 after rendering eight years of service, the respondent cannot claim pension. As pointed out ea....
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
