![]() Wednesday, Apr 23, 2003 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Tamil Nadu-Chennai
By Our Staff Reporter
The impugned order was issued after the Government passed a set of five orders, on March 19, relating to payment of 50 per cent of gratuity benefits in the form of small savings certificates, enhancement of qualifying years of service for pension from 30 to 33 years and the reduction in the number of days of encashable leave. Justice K.P. Sivasubramaniam admitted the petition, filed by the Chennai Metropolitan Sewerage Board Employees Progressive Union today, and granted an interim injunction restraining the Board from giving effect to the impugned proceedings. Among other things, the order seeks to determine the quantum of pension based on the average emoluments drawn during the last 10 months of service instead of the present system of paying it on the basis of the last drawn salary. Even the encashment of leave salary shall be based on pay plus Dearness Allowance only, and not other allowances. The order also sought to scale down the pensionary benefits by effecting changes in the commutation pattern. The Board should not have mechanically adopted the GOs without application of mind, more so when it had consistently made profits, the union president, R. Chinnaiya, said in his petition. Pointing out that the Board was operating in surplus for the ninth year, he said it could not plead financial emergency as in the case of the Government. "The Board, an independent, profit-making body, which does not face the situation alleged by the State Government, should not have mechanically borrowed the Government Orders and made them applicable to the Board employees". Also, Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules provides that gratuity under the Act should be paid in cash or if so desired by the payee in demand draft or bank cheque to the eligible employee, nominee or legal heir, as the case may be, he said. Superannuation benefits were not a bounty but in consideration of the long service rendered by the employees and it was not open to the Board to curtail them and unlawfully deprive the employee of his property, Mr. Chinnaiya said in his petition. Already, the court has stayed a similar order passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and restrained it from giving effect to the altered pattern of pension payment.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|