TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies Regulation 29(5) on qualifying service for employees.</h1> The Supreme Court held that clause (5) of Regulation 29 applies only to employees who have completed 20 years of qualifying service. The Court set aside ... - Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for Pension Benefits under United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995.2. Interpretation of 'Qualifying Service' under Regulation 29(5).3. Applicability of Clause (5) of Regulation 29 to Voluntary Retirement.Summary:1. Eligibility for Pension Benefits under United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995:The respondent voluntarily retired from the United Bank of India on 31.5.1989. The United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, were introduced later, and the respondent sought to exercise his option for pension. The appellant bank rejected his application, leading the respondent to file a writ petition. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, but the appellant bank challenged this decision.2. Interpretation of 'Qualifying Service' under Regulation 29(5):The core question was whether the respondent was entitled to pensionary benefits under clause (5) of Regulation 29. Regulation 2(n) defines 'employee' and Regulation 2(w) defines 'qualifying service'. The Regulations applied to employees who retired on or after 1.1.1986 and before 1.11.1993, provided they exercised the option within the prescribed period. The High Court interpreted that the qualifying service could be extended by five years under clause (5) of Regulation 29, considering the service rendered while on duty or otherwise.3. Applicability of Clause (5) of Regulation 29 to Voluntary Retirement:The Supreme Court examined whether clause (5) of Regulation 29, which allows for an increase in qualifying service by up to five years, applied to the respondent. The Court held that the term 'otherwise' should be interpreted ejusdem generis, meaning it should be limited to situations similar to those explicitly mentioned in the Regulations. The Court concluded that the respondent, who was not in service at the relevant time, could not benefit from the extended qualifying service provision.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that clause (5) of Regulation 29 applies only to employees who have completed 20 years of qualifying service. The appeal was allowed, and no order as to costs was made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
