Prudeta
Prudeta
2026 INSC 333
📌 Paras 3-7
The appellant, a former employee of the respondent-Bank, left service in 1989 and sought to rejoin in 2004. The Bank declared him voluntarily retired in 2008. The appellant's initial writ petition was directed to the Labour Court. His subsequent claim for pension benefits before the Labour Court was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as it involved disputed facts regarding pre-existing rights under pension rules. This dismissal was upheld by the High Court's Single Judge and subsequently by a Division Bench.
📌 Para 18
Whether the appellant is entitled to pensionary benefits in accordance with the applicable Pension Fund Rules.
📌 Paras 17, 22-24
While the lower courts dismissed the ap
The bench further analyzed the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions and discussed the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 in light of recent precedents...
Citing the ratio in prior decisions, the court held that the legislative intent was to ensure...
No credit card required · 14-day free trial