High Court rejects pension claim
MADURAI, JULY 25, 2019 00:00 IST
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday ruled that when an employee has resigned and the same was accepted, he or she cannot claim pension benefits or compassionate allowance.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam said that when an employee resigned and it was accepted by competent authority, Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 operates against him/ her and it means forfeiture of service. Such an employee cannot claim benefit under rules. Even compassionate allowance cannot be granted which is provided under Rule 40. A government servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity.
In case of special consideration, the competent authority may sanction compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension or gratuity or both, which would be admissible. The same cannot be provided to employees who have resigned their jobs.
For instance, an employee removed or dismissed from service in view of allegations of unauthorised absence, which is not grave, then the competent authority can decide on compassionate allowance taking family circumstances into account. The same cannot be considered on allegations of grave charges.
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by P. Arokiyamary. She said that after rendering service as a Second Grade Assistant teacher for 11 years, she resigned in 1978. She claimed she was entitled to pension for having served for over 10 years. Her claim was rejected, she said.
Special Government Pleader S. Srimathy submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to pension as she had resigned job, which was accepted by the competent authority. Pension rules contemplates that resignation amounts to forfeiture of service. So, she was not entitled to relief and dismissed the writ petition.
MADURAI, JULY 25, 2019 00:00 IST
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday ruled that when an employee has resigned and the same was accepted, he or she cannot claim pension benefits or compassionate allowance.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam said that when an employee resigned and it was accepted by competent authority, Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 operates against him/ her and it means forfeiture of service. Such an employee cannot claim benefit under rules. Even compassionate allowance cannot be granted which is provided under Rule 40. A government servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity.
In case of special consideration, the competent authority may sanction compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension or gratuity or both, which would be admissible. The same cannot be provided to employees who have resigned their jobs.
For instance, an employee removed or dismissed from service in view of allegations of unauthorised absence, which is not grave, then the competent authority can decide on compassionate allowance taking family circumstances into account. The same cannot be considered on allegations of grave charges.
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by P. Arokiyamary. She said that after rendering service as a Second Grade Assistant teacher for 11 years, she resigned in 1978. She claimed she was entitled to pension for having served for over 10 years. Her claim was rejected, she said.
Special Government Pleader S. Srimathy submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to pension as she had resigned job, which was accepted by the competent authority. Pension rules contemplates that resignation amounts to forfeiture of service. So, she was not entitled to relief and dismissed the writ petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment