#Supreme Court pension cases

[dailyfinancial]

Government Employees Beware: How Casual Leave Can Impact Your Family’s Pension Rights

“Delhi HC rules no liberalised family pension for deaths during casual leave without a direct link to official duty. Learn about the judgment, its implications, and latest trends in family pensions in India. Essential reading for government employees and families navigating pension eligibility and benefits.” In a significant ruling that has far-reaching implications for government employees and…

[rightnewshindi]

सुप्रीम कोर्ट की उत्तराखंड सरकार को फटकार: 9 साल से मुआवजे के लिए भटक रही डॉक्टर की विधवा को 89 लाख देने का आदेश #News #BreakingNews #LatestNews #CurrentNews #HindiNews

[darkmaga-returns]

QUESTION: You have been critical of an executive order by Biden. What will you say when Trump unleashes his flurry of executive dictated?

GV

ANSWER: The purposes of an executive order should be confined to running the government like any company CEO. Trump should withdraw the security clearance of all 51 people who falsely claimed the Hunter laptop was Russian propaganda. I believe that they are traitors to the country. I would fire each and everyone and strip them of all pensions. That would be a valid executive order, as would firing executive bureaucrats. The president is the CEO of the Executive Branch. He needs Congress’s approval to install judges in the Judicial Branch. When orders are confined to personnel inside the Executive Branch, that is within his Constitutional Power.

What I disagree with are executive orders that circumvent Congress. Biden outlawed gas water heaters. That is a question for Congress – not an executive decision any more than sending in troops or allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles to target inside Russia. The Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war, not the president.

I will look at what Trump does, and my analysis will be eliminated on those lines. I disagree with FDR’s executive orders to confiscate gold and silver. I think Congress should have decided that.

The major case issued by the Supreme Court striking down a president’s executive order came about in 1952. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the court held struck down Executive Order 10340, issued by President Harry Truman, for seizing control of the steel manufacturers because of an anticipated union strike in the nation’s steel mills during the Korean War. The court held that President Truman lacked the constitutional or statutory power to seize private property.

The court focused on the fact that the Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and thus, it could not sand Pp. 343 U. S. 585-589. Moreover, no statute expressly or impliedly authorized the President to take possession of this property as he did here.

Using this criterion, Biden’s outlawing gas water heaters is arbitrary and absurd. It was unconstitutional, as many of his antics demonstrated that he assumed dictatorial power. Still, the Constitution never authorized such an exercise of power outside the administration of the Executive Branch. He has the Constitutional power to issue a pardon, but not pronounce someone guilty and imprison them without a trial in the Judiciary branch.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Ford at TNR:

There are more than 800 federal judges in the United States. None of them create as much work for their colleagues as Reed O’Connor, a federal judge who serves in the northern district of Texas. For nearly two decades, O’Connor has delivered one ideologically driven ruling after another. No matter how many times those decisions are overturned by the appellate courts and the Supreme Court itself, he persists.

In his latest haphazard ruling, O’Connor held last week that American Airlines violated its legal obligations to employees by allowing BlackRock, the company’s 401(k) manager, to consider “environmental, societal, and governance” factors when making investment decisions and casting proxy votes. If upheld on appeal, the ruling threatens to upend the entire retirement plan industry by opening 401(k) managers to litigation and penalties for using ESG factors as part of their investment strategies—something that nearly every manager has done in recent years. At issue in the case is whether the airline violated its legal obligations to employees by investing their 401(k) plans with BlackRock, one of the nation’s three largest investment managers, while the investment firm pursued environmentally and socially conscious goals. The class-action plaintiffs claimed that the airline financially harmed its 401(k) participants by not sufficiently scrutinizing BlackRock’s ESG principles when investing and casting proxy votes in shareholder meetings.

BlackRock currently manages more than $10 trillion in retirement funds. Like nearly all such managers, it adopted a series of ESG policies over the last decade. Those policies led it to use its proxy voting powers on behalf of shareholders to encourage companies to adopt more socially and environmentally conscious policies. In perhaps the most famous episode, it sided with a group of activist investors in a 2021 proxy vote to put three members on ExxonMobil’s board who would push for investments in renewable energy. The plaintiffs claimed that this approach violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, also known as ERISA. The law sets basic standards for pensions and employee benefit and retirement plans offered by employers. Those employers have a fiduciary requirement to administer their plans on behalf of their employees to minimize risk, avoid conflicts of interest, and so on. Two of these obligations are known as the “duty of prudence” and the “duty of loyalty.”

In the plaintiff’s telling, considering ESG issues when making investment decisions violates these duties because they inherently reduce the fund’s performance. “[American Airlines and its subsidiaries] have violated ERISA by selecting and retaining ESG funds that pursue nonfinancial or nonpecuniary objectives like ESG social policy objectives, rather than investment funds that have the exclusive purpose of maximizing financial returns for investors,” they argued in their complaint.

[...] The split ruling leads to a paradoxical result: In its telling, American Airlines violated ERISA by not challenging BlackRock’s ESG efforts in general and the ExxonMobil vote in particular, but would have also violated ERISA if it had imprudently dropped the management firm after the ExxonMobil vote. O’Connor tried to square the circle by describing the retirement plan industry as “oligopolist” and “cartel-like,” and claiming that “industry norms are not enough to safeguard against breaches of loyalty,” but the paradox remained. This mishmash of a ruling is par for the course with O’Connor. The judge became famous in the 2010s for habitually ruling that the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional. In 2018, he ruled that the entire law was unconstitutional because a Republican-led Congress had zeroed out the individual mandate’s penalty. The decision was widely condemned as lawless, even by some of the ACA’s critics. In 2021, the Supreme Court nixed the lawsuit on standing grounds in a 7–2 ruling, with even Justice Clarence Thomas voting to uphold the ACA. More recently, O’Connor butchered the Indian Child Welfare Act through a series of profound misreadings of Indian law and precedent, again leading to a 7–2 reversal by the justices. O’Connor is also widely seen as an extremely friendly judge to conservative legal interests. Right-wing plaintiffs routinely file lawsuits in his division in hopes of getting them assigned to him. Elon Musk, the far-right CEO of X, updated the company’s terms of service last fall to require that any user lawsuit brought against X be filed in O’Connor’s division in Texas, even though the company is headquartered in California. It is unsurprising that the plaintiffs chose his court to file an anti-ESG lawsuit in, or that he might be interested in enforcing right-wing policy goals. Last December, for example, O’Connor threw out a proposed plea deal between the Justice Department and Boeing over its 737 MAX crashes because of a provision that would have required a federal monitor to be selected “in keeping with the [Justice] Department’s commitment to diversity and inclusion.” The judge claimed that “the parties’ DEI efforts only serve to undermine this confidence in the government and Boeing’s ethics and anti-fraud efforts.”

Right-wing activist judge Reed O’Connor is on a rampage against ESG retirement planning.

[todaysdocument]

Supreme Court of the United States Syllabus for Jo Carol LaFleur v. Cleveland Board of Education, et al.

Record Group 15: Records of the Department of Veterans AffairsSeries: Case Files of Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Applications Based on Revolutionary War Service

(slip opinion) - top right: 42 USC § 1983 Public Teachers - Mandatory Maternity Leave, Due Process NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released as is being done in connection with this case, at the time of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States vs. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v LaFLEUR ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 72-777. Argued OCtober 15, 1973 --- Decided January 21, 1974* Pregnant public school teachers brought these actions under U. S. C. § 1983 challenging the constitutionality of mandatory maternity leave rules of the Cleveland Ohio (No. 72-777), and Chesterfield County, Virginia (No. 72-1129(, School Boards. The Cleveland rule requires a pregnant school teacher to take unpaid maternity leave five months before the expected childbirth, with leave application to be made at least two weeks before her departure. Eligibility to return to work is not accorded until the next regular semester after her child is three months old. The Chesterfield County rule requires the teacher to leave work at least four months, and to give notice at least six months, before the anticipated childbirth. Re-employment is guaranteed no later than the first day of the school year after the date she is declared re-eligible. Both schemes require a physician's certificate of physical fitness prior to the teacher's return. Each Court of Appeals reversed the court below, one holding the Chesterfield County maternity leave rule constitutional, the other holding the Cleveland rule unconstitutional. Held: 1. The mandatory termination provisions of both maternity rules violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 6-15 (a) The arbitrary cutoff dates (which obviously come at different times of the school year for different school teachers) have no valid relationship to the State's interest in preserving continuity. *Together with No. 72-1129, Cohen v. Chesterfield County School Board et al., on centiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. [full transcription at link]

[mariacallous]

Multiple Russian human rights organizations have written to the country’s Supreme Court asking it to dismiss a lawsuit by the Russian Justice Ministry demanding that the “international LGBT public movement” be banned as an “extremist organization.”

Lawyers from the human rights groups sent a letter highlighting the suit’s “anti-legal nature” to the court. Among other things, it notes that there is no such entity as the “international LGBT movement.” Meduza has obtained a copy of the document.

“You can’t use the phrase ‘public movement’ to refer to a group of people just because they belong to some social group or because they have some personal attributes in common. That’s just as absurd as referring to all pensioners as a ‘public movement,’ or all people of a certain ethnicity,” the letter reads.

The lawyers criticize the classified nature of the proceedings, which they say violates the principle of transparency. Because the “LGBT movement” doesn’t exist, they argue, there’s not a single organization or citizen who can serve as a defendant in the case. “This is essentially a closed process with only one participant: the Russian Justice Ministry itself,” the statement continues.

Involvement in the activities of an “extremist organization” is punishable by up to 10 years in prison for organizers and up to six years for everyone else. The letter notes that this means that if the “LGBT movement” is given the designation, it could result in the criminalization of human rights advocacy and activism as well as a heightened risk of persecution for human rights workers, activists, journalists, and all openly LGBTQ+ people.

“The recognition of the ‘LGBT movement’ as extremist would effectively signify the state’s desire to control people’s beliefs and promote ‘traditional’ family values, which it claims are incompatible with the activities of the ‘LGBT movement,’ and would contradict the provisions of the Russian Constitution that declare Russia to be a secular state,” the lawyers write.

The Supreme Court is set to consider the suit on November 30.

[discipleofthemis]

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Petitioner, vs. TERESITA JARQUE VDA. DE BAILON, Respondent.

G.R. No. 165545             March 24, 2006

Civil law; subsequent marriages before the effectivity of the Family Code.

ISSUE: May the subsequent marriage of Clemente Bailon and respondent Teresita Jarque be terminated by mere reappearance of the absent spouse of Bailon? (answers are rulings of the Supreme Court) after the facts

FACTS: Clemente G. Bailon and Alice P. Diaz got married in 1955. Over 15 years later, Bailon filed a petition to declare Alice presumptively dead, and the court granted it in 1970.

In 1983, Bailon married Teresita Jarque. Bailon, a retiree pensioner, passed away in 1998. Teresita filed claims for funeral and death benefits, which were granted by the Social Security System (SSS).

However, Cecilia Bailon-Yap, claiming to be Bailon's daughter, contested the claims, stating that Alice was still alive and that Teresita's marriage to Bailon was void. The SSS recommended canceling Teresita's benefits and refunding the amount paid to her.

Various parties filed claims for Bailon's death benefits, and the SSS ordered Teresita to refund the benefits she received. Teresita protested and filed a petition with the SSS.

Later, Alicia P. Diaz, claiming to be Bailon's widow, submitted an affidavit contradicting Bailon's representation of Alice's disappearance. The SSC declared Teresita as a common-law wife, ordered her to refund the benefits, and directed the SSS to pay Alice her rightful death benefit.

Teresita appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the SSC's decision, stating that the SSS lacked the authority to nullify the court's findings and that Teresita was not given a fair opportunity to present evidence. The motions for reconsideration by the SSC and the SSS were denied.

ANSWER (SUPREME COURT RULING): YES!

Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by the Social Security System (SSS). The SSS argued that the Court of Appeals (CA) failed to consider the findings of the Social Security Commission (SSC) regarding the prior and subsisting marriage between Bailon and Alice, disregarded the authority of the SSC to determine the beneficiaries of the death benefits, and claimed that the SSS did not provide the respondent with due process.

However, the Supreme Court held that the SSC exceeded its authority by reviewing and overturning the decisions of regular courts.

The court emphasized that the applicable law to determine the validity of the marriages involved is the Civil Code since they were solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code.

Under the Civil Code, a subsequent marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse is considered illegal and void unless certain exceptional circumstances exist or it is declared null and void by a competent court.

The court further explained that the burden of proof lies with the party challenging the validity of the second marriage.

In this case, Alice had been absent for 15 consecutive years when Bailon sought the declaration of her presumptive death, which was not even required for purposes of remarriage at that time. Additionally, the court cited legal opinions stating that if a subsequent marriage is dissolved by the death of either spouse, the effects of dissolution of valid marriages arise.

Therefore, since no steps were taken to nullify Bailon's and respondent's marriage before Bailon's death, the court concluded that the respondent is the rightful dependent spouse-beneficiary of Bailon. As a result, the Supreme Court denied the SSS' petition.

[rithvik242003]

Supreme Court Stays Recruitment Process of Judicial Magistrates in Gujarat Without Minimum Practice Condition

The Gujarat Public Service Commission's advertisement did not specify any requirement for a minimum number of years of practice as an advocate for candidates. The Supreme Court noted that it has yet to deliver its judgment on whether fresh law graduates should be allowed to apply for entry-level judicial positions. Given that the matter is still under consideration by the Supreme Court, a bench consisting of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the High Court should not have proceeded with the recruitment process.

A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, A.G. Masih, and K.V. Chandran is currently hearing a writ petition filed by the All-India Judges Association. The petition addresses a range of issues, including judges' pensions and service conditions. Among the topics discussed, Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar deliberated on whether the requirement of three years of legal practice should be reinstated.

I.A. NO.54701 of 2025

The Supreme Court observed

"The question as to whether some number of years should be prescribed as a minimum qualification for enabling a candidate to apply for the post of JMFC, Civil Judge, Senior Division, is pending before a three-judge bench of this Court. The bench of three-judges has elaborately heard the matter. The arguments of all State Governments as well as High Courts have been heard by the Court and matter is reserved for judgment. When the Court is seized of this issue, we don't appreciate the necessity to rush through the selection process in as such as the outcome of the judgment could have a direct bearing on the qualification to be prescribed for the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Civil Judge, Junior Division. We therefore issue notice to the Gujarat High Court as well as State of Gujarat...Further, stay all the proceedings initiated by the High Court for recruitment to the post of JMFC."

The Supreme Court issued notices to the State (through the Chief Secretary) and the Gujarat High Court (through the Registrar General) in response to an interim application filed by Advocate Ajit Pravin Wagh in the All-India Judges Association case. The matter is scheduled for hearing on March 18. The Court also permitted the withdrawal of a Special Leave Petition filed by other candidates challenging the Gujarat High Court's order.

The interim application seeks to halt the Gujarat High Court's February 24 interim order, which directed the Bar Council of Gujarat to issue provisional practice certificates to individuals claiming to have completed their LLB from "unrecognized" institutes, allowing them to participate in the recruitment process for Civil Judge, Junior Division.

[odnewsin]

Supreme Court reprimands Odisha over pension case delays

The Supreme Court of India has highlighted a crucial distinction between ‘work-charged employees’ and ‘job contractors’ concerning pension entitlements under the Odisha Pension Rules 1992. This clarification follows numerous delayed petitions from Odisha regarding pension benefits. Explaining the distinction between the work-charged employee and employees working on a job contract, the Top Court…

[trend932455660]

Best Advocate For Service Matters in Bangalore

What Are Service Matters?

Service matters involve legal disputes related to employment in both government and private sectors. These cases typically include:

Appointments & Terminations — Issues related to wrongful termination, unlawful hiring practices, and service regularization.

Promotions & Transfers — Disputes over denied promotions or unfair transfer policies.

Pension & Retirement Benefits — Cases involving delayed pensions, gratuity, and retirement benefits.

Disciplinary Actions — Legal matters concerning suspensions, dismissals, or penalties imposed by employers.

Salary & Pay Scale Disputes — Cases regarding pay parity, unpaid wages, and salary reductions.

With years of experience, HNCK AND ASSOCIATES has successfully handled various service matters, ensuring justice for employees and employers.

Importance of Hiring the Right Advocate for Service Matters

Service matters require specialized legal knowledge. A general lawyer may not have the expertise to navigate the complexities of service laws. Choosing the best advocate ensures:

In-depth knowledge of service laws — Expertise in Central and State service laws, labor laws, and constitutional provisions.

Strong representation in legal forums — Advocates proficient in handling cases at Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), High Court, and Supreme Court.

Effective dispute resolution — Skilled negotiators who can settle disputes through mediation or litigation.

At HNCK AND ASSOCIATES, our legal team possesses the required expertise and proven success in service matter cases.

Different Types of Service Matter Cases Handled by HNCK AND ASSOCIATES

1. Government Service Disputes

Government employees often face legal issues such as wrongful termination, suspension, or promotion delays. Our firm provides strong representation for:

Violation of Service Rules — Cases involving breaches of government employment policies.

Administrative Tribunal Representation — Advocating before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

Retirement & Pension Disputes — Ensuring government retirees receive proper benefits.

2. Private Sector Employment Cases

Private sector employees also encounter service-related legal conflicts. HNCK AND ASSOCIATES represents professionals in sectors like IT, banking, and manufacturing. Our expertise covers:

Unfair Termination Cases — Filing cases against unjust job dismissals.

Non-payment of Salaries & Benefits — Assisting employees in recovering unpaid wages.

Employment Contract Disputes — Resolving conflicts over contract violations.

3. Promotion & Transfer Disputes

Many employees face promotion denials or forced transfers that hinder career growth. We assist in:

Filing legal challenges against unfair promotions.

Ensuring adherence to promotion policies.

Challenging unfair job transfers through legal representation.

4. Disciplinary Actions & Departmental Inquiries

Employees facing disciplinary action need legal defense to protect their careers. Our advocates provide assistance in:

Challenging illegal suspensions.

Defending against wrongful charges in departmental inquiries.

Filing appeals against wrongful disciplinary actions.

5. Pay Scale & Salary Disputes

Employees often face salary disputes such as pay cuts, delayed payments, or inequality in pay scales. Our firm specializes in:

Ensuring legal compliance in salary structures.

Representing employees in cases of pay discrimination.

Helping recover unpaid wages or denied allowances.

Why Choose HNCK AND ASSOCIATES for Service Matters in Bangalore?

1. Expertise in Service Laws

Our firm specializes in service matters, ensuring clients receive strategic legal solutions tailored to their case.

2. Representation in Various Legal Forums

We represent clients before:

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

Karnataka High Court.

Supreme Court of India.

3. Strong Success Record

Our legal team has handled numerous high-profile service matter cases, securing favorable judgments for clients.

4. Client-Centric Approach

We provide personalized legal solutions, ensuring each client receives proper attention and representation.

5. Affordable & Transparent Fees

Legal representation can be costly. HNCK AND ASSOCIATES offers affordable fee structures with complete transparency in billing.

Steps to File a Service Matter Case in Bangalore

If you are facing a service-related legal issue, follow these steps to seek legal assistance:

Step 1: Consultation

Schedule a consultation with HNCK AND ASSOCIATES to discuss your case. Our advocates will analyze your case and suggest the best legal approach.

Step 2: Case Evaluation & Documentation

Gather necessary documents such as:

Appointment Letters.

Service Records & Performance Reports.

Termination or Suspension Orders.

Correspondence with Employers.

Step 3: Filing the Case

Our team will prepare a strong legal petition and file it in the appropriate legal forum.

Step 4: Representation & Litigation

We provide aggressive representation in court, ensuring your rights are upheld.

Step 5: Case Resolution

Once the court issues a judgment, we ensure its enforcement for your benefit.

Conclusion

Legal disputes in employment can be stressful. However, with the right legal support, you can protect your rights and career. If you’re looking for the best advocate for service matters in Bangalore, HNCK AND ASSOCIATES is your ideal legal partner. Our expertise in service laws, commitment to client satisfaction, and proven success rate make us the top choice for service-related cases.

Need legal assistance? Contact HNCK AND ASSOCIATES today for expert legal advice on service matters.

[kanchankhatanaa]

Employment law in India - Employee Provident Fund (EPF) and Social Security

Employee Provident Fund (EPF) and Social Security: Safeguarding Workers' Future The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, of 1952, is a cornerstone of India’s social security framework. It ensures financial security for employees by mandating contributions towards provident funds, pensions, and insurance benefits. The Act covers a wide range of employment sectors and provides a safety net for employees and their families, especially in times of need.

Key Features of the EPF Act

Provident Fund (PF): Employers and employees contribute equally to the Provident Fund. The accumulated amount and interest are payable to the employee upon retirement, resignation, or specified contingencies.

Employee Pension Scheme (EPS): A portion of the employer’s contribution is directed toward the pension scheme. Provides monthly pension to employees upon retirement or to their dependents in the event of the employee’s demise.

Employee Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme (EDLI): Provides a lump-sum insurance benefit to the nominee in case of the employee’s death during the service period. The benefit amount is linked to the employee’s last drawn salary.

Applicability: The Act applies to establishments employing 20 or more persons. Covers employees earning up to a specified wage ceiling, though voluntary coverage is available for higher earners. Objectives of the Act

To ensure financial independence and stability for employees post-retirement.

To provide a safety net for employees’ families in unforeseen circumstances.

To promote a culture of savings and long-term financial planning among workers. Landmark Judgments on EPF and Social Security

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Sri Krishna Manufacturing Co. (1962) The Supreme Court held that the EPF Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at securing the welfare of employees. The Court emphasized that its provisions must be interpreted liberally to fulfill its objectives.

Manipal Academy of Higher Education v. Provident Fund Commissioner (2008) This case clarified the definition of "basic wages" to calculate EPF contributions. The Court ruled that allowances forming part of the regular wages must be included in the calculation, ensuring fair contributions.

Surya Roshni Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund (2019) The Supreme Court reiterated that special allowances paid to employees must be included as part of "basic wages" for EPF contribution purposes, ensuring transparency and fair practices.

M/S Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (2008) The Court highlighted that even contract workers engaged through intermediaries are entitled to EPF benefits, underscoring the Act’s inclusive nature. Challenges in Implementation

Compliance Gaps: Many small and medium enterprises struggle to comply with the Act due to administrative or financial constraints.

Informal Sector Exclusion: Much of India’s workforce is informal, limiting the Act’s reach.

Lack of Awareness: Employees often lack understanding of their entitlements under the EPF scheme.

Delay in Claims: Procedural delays can hinder timely access to benefits. The Way Forward

Expanding Coverage: Extending the applicability of the EPF Act to include informal sector workers and smaller establishments.

Streamlining Processes: Simplifying claim procedures through digitization and automation.

Awareness Campaigns: Educating employees and employers about the benefits and obligations under the Act.

Strengthened Enforcement: Enhancing monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance and address grievances efficiently. Conclusion The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, of 1952, plays a pivotal role in India’s social security landscape. By providing financial security through provident funds, pensions, and insurance benefits, the Act safeguards employees and their families against uncertainties. While significant progress has been made, addressing implementation challenges and expanding its coverage can further strengthen its impact, ensuring a secure and dignified future for India’s workforce

[news365timesindia]

[ad_1] A large number of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (RINL) higher pension aspirants have met Gazuwaka MLA and TDP State President, Palla Srinivasa Rao today, at his party office in Gazuwaka, and submitted a memorandum seeking his intervention to speak to Union Minister of Civil Aviation K. Ram Mohan Naidu for taking up this issue of importance with the Union Labour Minister about their grievance. The higher Pensions matter has been pending for the last 14 months with the EPFO, the Steel Pensioners say. It may be recalled that during November 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had given a verdict entitling the employees to higher pension on actual salary as against ceiling wage. Even after remittance of about ₹410 Crores to the Regional PF Office at Visakhapatnam by the eligible pensioners of RINL, Visakhapatnam steel plant in October 2023, the issue has been pending ever since with Employee’s Provident fund organisation (EPFO) raising the issue of eligibility in the last minute on the ground that PF(Provident fund) Trust rules of the respective establishments do not provide for such benefit. It has thus become a national issue for pensioners of all establishments including Visakhapatnam steel plant. It is learnt that EPFO has sent a proposal a week ago to the Ministry of Labour and Employment seeking to issue new guidelines for the exempted establishments, the pensioners allege. Against this background, those in service (eligible pensioners) and also retirees of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (RINL) have sought intervention of Union Minister Ram Mohan Naidu to pursue their case and cause with his cabinet colleague Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya, Union Minister of Labour and Employment through the Gajuwaka MLA & AP State President, Telugu Desam Party Palla Srinivasa Rao. Touched by the genuine grievances of the RINL Pensioners, The AP State TDP Supremo Palla Srinivasa Rao immediately spoke to the Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu over phone and requested his intervention to impress upon Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya, Union Minister of Labour and Employment the need to sanction higher pensions (Pension on Higher wages). Union Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu has given an assurance that he would personally pursue the Higher pension issue with Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya, Union Minister of Labour and Employment. Vizag Steel Plant Pensioners’ collective has profusely thanked the Gazuwaka MLA and the Union Civil Aviation Minister, for responding to their grievance spontaneously. Retired employees of RINL, VS Murthy, JA Swamy, Pitta Rammohan Rao and Pitta Kuncha Rao and others met Gazuwaka MLA and TDP State President, Palla Srinivasa Rao on behalf of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Pensioners. Press Release issued on behalf of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Pensioners By VS Murthy, Retired Executive, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (RINL) [ad_2] Source link

[news365times]

[ad_1] A large number of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (RINL) higher pension aspirants have met Gazuwaka MLA and TDP State President, Palla Srinivasa Rao today, at his party office in Gazuwaka, and submitted a memorandum seeking his intervention to speak to Union Minister of Civil Aviation K. Ram Mohan Naidu for taking up this issue of importance with the Union Labour Minister about their grievance. The higher Pensions matter has been pending for the last 14 months with the EPFO, the Steel Pensioners say. It may be recalled that during November 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had given a verdict entitling the employees to higher pension on actual salary as against ceiling wage. Even after remittance of about ₹410 Crores to the Regional PF Office at Visakhapatnam by the eligible pensioners of RINL, Visakhapatnam steel plant in October 2023, the issue has been pending ever since with Employee’s Provident fund organisation (EPFO) raising the issue of eligibility in the last minute on the ground that PF(Provident fund) Trust rules of the respective establishments do not provide for such benefit. It has thus become a national issue for pensioners of all establishments including Visakhapatnam steel plant. It is learnt that EPFO has sent a proposal a week ago to the Ministry of Labour and Employment seeking to issue new guidelines for the exempted establishments, the pensioners allege. Against this background, those in service (eligible pensioners) and also retirees of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (RINL) have sought intervention of Union Minister Ram Mohan Naidu to pursue their case and cause with his cabinet colleague Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya, Union Minister of Labour and Employment through the Gajuwaka MLA & AP State President, Telugu Desam Party Palla Srinivasa Rao. Touched by the genuine grievances of the RINL Pensioners, The AP State TDP Supremo Palla Srinivasa Rao immediately spoke to the Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu over phone and requested his intervention to impress upon Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya, Union Minister of Labour and Employment the need to sanction higher pensions (Pension on Higher wages). Union Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu has given an assurance that he would personally pursue the Higher pension issue with Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya, Union Minister of Labour and Employment. Vizag Steel Plant Pensioners’ collective has profusely thanked the Gazuwaka MLA and the Union Civil Aviation Minister, for responding to their grievance spontaneously. Retired employees of RINL, VS Murthy, JA Swamy, Pitta Rammohan Rao and Pitta Kuncha Rao and others met Gazuwaka MLA and TDP State President, Palla Srinivasa Rao on behalf of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Pensioners. Press Release issued on behalf of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Pensioners By VS Murthy, Retired Executive, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (RINL) [ad_2] Source link

[tsmom1219]

Labor Department’s ESG rule trial to serve as litmus test for Chevron decision

Read the full story at ESG Dive. A trial over the Labor Department’s ESG rule begins next week, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of the Chevron doctrine. The case stems from an appeal submitted by 26 Republican state attorneys general challenging the agency’s rule allowing pension fund managers to consider ESG factors. The case will become the first rule concerning ESG to go…

[gudamor]

@sarahthecoat

Believe it or not the argument they took to (at least one) court was that the 1st Amendment protected the right to Call for a boycott, but not to participate in one.

argued that Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc. (FAIR) was the controlling case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could withhold funds from universities for refusing to give military recruiters access to school resources. Universities denying access to military recruiters is analogous to boycotting Israel, proponents argue. Since the Supreme Court ruled that denying access to military recruiters was not expressive conduct neither could boycotts of Israel be expressive conduct

This chart is also rather reductive, because different states anti-BDS laws have significant differences. For example in my state:

going further than non-binding anti-BDS measures in Tennessee and Indiana, the Illinois bill took concrete action against those who boycott the Jewish state. The legislation—which unanimously passed both the Illinois House (102-0) and Senate (49-0), and will be signed into law by [former] Governor Bruce Rauner—prohibits state pension funds from including BDS-participating companies in their portfolios.

Map highlighting states that have enacted laws prohibiting boycotts against Israel.

[sudhirrao4]

Sudhir Rao

Sudhir Rao

Advocate At Supreme Court of India and High Court of Delhi, we deals in all kind of legal matters, Expert in RTI (Right to Information) cases, IT / cyber crimes, Tax Matters, Family Law Marriage, Divorce, Alimony and maintenance, Restitution of conjugal rights, Judicial separation, Domestic violence, 498a, Child custody, Annulment of marriage, Muslim law, Other family matters Property Law Rights of sons/daughters/wife, Legal heir, Legal heirship certificate, Buying property, Selling property, Partition of property, Tenant/landlord/eviction, Neighbour issues, Sale agreement, Sale deed, Gift deed, Muslim law, Relinquishment deed, Deed of family settlement, Succession certificate, Succession of property, Power of attorney, Builder issues, Wills and trusts, SARFAESI action by bank, DRT/DRAT, Other property matters Labour Employment, Leave, Salary and pension, Termination, Relieving letter, Disciplinary proceedings, Other labour issues Constitutional Law Fundamental rights, OBC, Writ petitions, Public interest litigation, Supreme Court, Other issues Business Law Corporate matters, Business contracts, Arbitration, Share transfer, Winding up petitions, Other business matters Civil Law Name change, Passport issues, Date of birth issues, Aadhar card issues, PAN card issues, Legal notice, Civil cases, Civil disputes, Customs/Excise/FEMA, Banking, Loans, Recovery of money, Motor accident, Medical negligence, Defamation, Right to information, Summary suit, Insurance, International law, Immigration, Armed Forces Tribunal, Other civil matters Criminal Law Cheque bounce, Fraud/Default, Forgery/Cheating, Breach of trust, FIR, Bail/Anticipatory Bail, Police action, Cybercrime, Trespass, Other criminal matters Consumer Law Consumer forum, Consumer protection, Other consumer issues etc