<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (10) TMI 1659 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279782</link>
    <description>The Employees&#039; Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 is described as going beyond the parent Act by creating date-based classes of covered employees and introducing restrictions not authorised by the statutory pension structure. The text states that the Rs. 15,000 salary ceiling and the demand for an additional 1.16% contribution had no statutory basis and were inconsistent with the scheme&#039;s earlier joint-option framework. It also says the cut-off date and the 60-month averaging rule for pensionable salary were arbitrary and curtailed pension benefits without lawful justification. The amendment scheme and consequential actions were therefore set aside, and employees were entitled to exercise the pension option without date-based restriction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 06:43:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565640" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1659 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279782</link>
      <description>The Employees&#039; Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 is described as going beyond the parent Act by creating date-based classes of covered employees and introducing restrictions not authorised by the statutory pension structure. The text states that the Rs. 15,000 salary ceiling and the demand for an additional 1.16% contribution had no statutory basis and were inconsistent with the scheme&#039;s earlier joint-option framework. It also says the cut-off date and the 60-month averaging rule for pensionable salary were arbitrary and curtailed pension benefits without lawful justification. The amendment scheme and consequential actions were therefore set aside, and employees were entitled to exercise the pension option without date-based restriction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279782</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>