Events & Personalities
Posthumous pension
On February 22, 2001, the very day that Central Bank of India announced its voluntary retirement scheme (VRS), Homai Darayas Postwala, an officer in the investment department who had been an employee of the Bank for 30 years, applied for it. Her name was not included in the first list, but featured in the second list on June 30. Unfortunately, she had passed away a few days earlier, on June 23, and the Bank claimed that she was not entitled to the benefits, reported The Times of India (TOI) on September 18, 2011. It was the Bank’s contention that as they had approved her name on June 25, two days after she had died, they were not liable to pay her family the Rs 9.5 lakhs as retirement benefits.
Eight years later, in 2009, the family won the case in the Bombay High Court. Postwala’s heirs argued that the Bank had failed to communicate their decision, whether positive or negative, as is the usual practice. They learned of the Bank’s acceptance of her application only when they made inquiries subsequent to her death at which time they were told that Postwala was not eligible for VRS benefits. The Court ruled otherwise and directed the Bank to pay Postwala’s retirement and other dues under VRS to her legal heirs within three months. The Bank then approached the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court’s order in April 2011, TOI reported.
In June 2011, when Postwala’s husband and son filed an RTI (right to information) application, they found out that the Bank had spent Rs 5.88 lakh on the decade-long legal battle, amounting to more than half of the amount due to the employee. After the Supreme Court upheld Postwala’s right to VRS, the family has approached the Bombay High Court to have the Bank enhance her pension from Rs 4,700 to Rs 6,700 per month. They have also filed a contempt petition since the pension amount has not been increased retrospectively from July 2001, TOI mentions.
Eight years later, in 2009, the family won the case in the Bombay High Court. Postwala’s heirs argued that the Bank had failed to communicate their decision, whether positive or negative, as is the usual practice. They learned of the Bank’s acceptance of her application only when they made inquiries subsequent to her death at which time they were told that Postwala was not eligible for VRS benefits. The Court ruled otherwise and directed the Bank to pay Postwala’s retirement and other dues under VRS to her legal heirs within three months. The Bank then approached the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court’s order in April 2011, TOI reported.
In June 2011, when Postwala’s husband and son filed an RTI (right to information) application, they found out that the Bank had spent Rs 5.88 lakh on the decade-long legal battle, amounting to more than half of the amount due to the employee. After the Supreme Court upheld Postwala’s right to VRS, the family has approached the Bombay High Court to have the Bank enhance her pension from Rs 4,700 to Rs 6,700 per month. They have also filed a contempt petition since the pension amount has not been increased retrospectively from July 2001, TOI mentions.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive