Sushil Parajuli but I went through it again from a different perspective to find out if the decision actually makes sense
In a candid assessment of the decision: बेद बहादुर लावती समेत विरुद्ध राष्ट्रिय वाणिज्य बैंक लि. केन्द्रीय कार्यालय सिंहदरबार समेत Case Number: 075-WO-0512, it becomes evident that the court's ruling appears somewhat superficial, having neglected to engage in an in-depth analysis and interpretation of the delineations between contributory and non-contributory retirement plans.
Setting forth the factual context: Rastriya Banijya Bank administers the RBB Retirement Fund, an "approved retirement fund" for the purposes of Income Tax Act 2058, encompassing a spectrum of retirement schemes. Upon scrutiny of the court's decision, it becomes discernible that the nature of these schemes bears notable similarity to those managed by the Citizen Investment Trust. Paragraph 2 of the decision delineates the essence of the schemes operated by the Fund, encompassing diverse categories such as the Employee Provident Fund, Medical Expenses, Welfare Provident Fund, Term Life Insurance, Gratuity Scheme, 7 Year Retirement Plan, Leave Payments, and others. Typically, these are also the customary retirement schemes overseen by myriad entities and employers across Nepal.
Although the court's verdict refrains from undertaking an exhaustive examination of the intricacies, entitlements, and contributions pertaining to each scheme, insights can be gleaned from the discourse in Paragraph 8 and Paragraph 11, indicating that the schemes function autonomously, in accordance with established practice. For instance, the Provident Fund scheme maintains a distinct identity from the Gratuity Scheme.
Notably, Paragraph 11 emerges as a pivotal juncture in the decision, as it encapsulates the RBB Retirement Fund's pivotal assertion. The Fund contends that the Gratuity Scheme qualifies as a non-contributory plan, underpinned by the rationale that the employer's contribution to the Gratuity Scheme (i) does not originate from the employee's earnings and (ii) the employer's contribution remains detached from the employee's taxable income. This assertion indeed holds true. However, intriguingly, the court's decision neglects to revisit this pivotal contention raised by the RBB Retirement Fund.