state government cannot be a ground to deny payment to employees
September 4, 2013 · 0 Comments
Chandigarh, September 3 Commonplace law that financial crunch faced by the state government cannot be a ground to deny payment to employees has found an echo in one of the latest judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The reverberation comes at a time when the salaries of three lakh employees in Punjab have been delayed due to cash crunch. The reference to a judgment talking about the “trite law” came during the hearing of a petition filed by Raksha Rani Khosla against the State of Punjab and others respondents. Wife of a mathematics instructor, she was seeking “legitimate service benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment and pension” after her husband’s death.
The allusion by Justice Mahesh Grover to the judgment talking about the “trite law” has not been made in reference to the present financial crisis, but at the same time its relevance is not a matter of conjunctures and surmises.
Taking up Raksha Rani’s petition, Justice Mahesh Grover referred to a Division Bench judgment dated October 1, 2012. Answering the appeals filed by a number of private institutions receiving government aid, the Division Bench had held that the employees were entitled to gratuity, leave encashment and other benefits.
The Bench had asserted: “It is also trite law that financial crunch of the state government cannot be a ground to deny the payments as held in Sadhu Singh and 129 others versus the State of Punjab and others….”
The judgment has been reproduced in details by Justice Grover in Raksha Rani’s case. Justice Grover added her husband was working with an aided institution receiving grants from the government. He was initially contributing towards general provident fund, but opted for the pension scheme after it was introduced.
In response to the plea for release of service benefits, the respondents told the court that “the state government has not so far allowed the benefits of gratuity and other benefits to the employees of the privately managed government-aided technical schools/polytechnics; and the matter regarding grant of pension benefits to the retired/deceased employees is still under consideration of the government”.
Disposing of the petition, Justice Grover asserted: “I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to gratuity and leave encashment on account of the service rendered by her husband with the respondent institution. Similarly, it is no longer in dispute that the employees of government-aided schools or institutions are also entitled to the pension benefit
September 4, 2013 · 0 Comments
Chandigarh, September 3 Commonplace law that financial crunch faced by the state government cannot be a ground to deny payment to employees has found an echo in one of the latest judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The reverberation comes at a time when the salaries of three lakh employees in Punjab have been delayed due to cash crunch. The reference to a judgment talking about the “trite law” came during the hearing of a petition filed by Raksha Rani Khosla against the State of Punjab and others respondents. Wife of a mathematics instructor, she was seeking “legitimate service benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment and pension” after her husband’s death.
The allusion by Justice Mahesh Grover to the judgment talking about the “trite law” has not been made in reference to the present financial crisis, but at the same time its relevance is not a matter of conjunctures and surmises.
Taking up Raksha Rani’s petition, Justice Mahesh Grover referred to a Division Bench judgment dated October 1, 2012. Answering the appeals filed by a number of private institutions receiving government aid, the Division Bench had held that the employees were entitled to gratuity, leave encashment and other benefits.
The Bench had asserted: “It is also trite law that financial crunch of the state government cannot be a ground to deny the payments as held in Sadhu Singh and 129 others versus the State of Punjab and others….”
The judgment has been reproduced in details by Justice Grover in Raksha Rani’s case. Justice Grover added her husband was working with an aided institution receiving grants from the government. He was initially contributing towards general provident fund, but opted for the pension scheme after it was introduced.
In response to the plea for release of service benefits, the respondents told the court that “the state government has not so far allowed the benefits of gratuity and other benefits to the employees of the privately managed government-aided technical schools/polytechnics; and the matter regarding grant of pension benefits to the retired/deceased employees is still under consideration of the government”.
Disposing of the petition, Justice Grover asserted: “I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to gratuity and leave encashment on account of the service rendered by her husband with the respondent institution. Similarly, it is no longer in dispute that the employees of government-aided schools or institutions are also entitled to the pension benefit
No comments:
Post a Comment