IBM employee became a millionaire without working! Despite paying 55 lakh salary for 15 years, a case was registered against the company

International Business Machines: If you are employed and someone asks you how much sick leave your company gives you every year due to illness? You may be thinking this question, but your question may be about 10, 20 or 30 holidays. But a shocking case has come to light in the well-known IT company IBM. An IBM employee has been on sick leave for 15 years. Not only this, he is given Rs 55 lakh per year as salary by the company.

Ian Clifford, an IBM employee who has been on sick leave for 15 years, has filed a lawsuit against the company. Ian has filed an appeal in the court against the company not giving him the increment. He argues that due to rising inflation, the annual salary of 54,028 pounds (about Rs 55 lakh) will decrease over time. However, the employment court rejected his claim. Also said that the benefit he (Ian Clifford) is getting is huge.

IBM took over the company
According to a report in Telegraph, Clifford started working for Lotus Development in 2000. The company was later acquired by IBM. After going on sick leave in 2008, Ian filed a complaint in 2013 stating that he had not received a pay raise or vacation pay for the past 5 years. IBM put Ian on a disability plan in an attempt to settle the matter. Under this, he was guaranteed 75 percent of his agreed income in the form of an amount of £54,028 (roughly Rs. 55.34 lakhs) per year till the age of 65.

Over £1.5 million –
With an annual salary of £54,028 and plans to retire aged 65, Ian will receive a total of over £1.5 million. Yet Clifford claimed she was being treated unequally compared to non-disabled employees. He demanded to increase the salary according to the current rate of inflation. He also said that if the salary is not adjusted with inflation then his salary will be worthless.

Market value halved in 30 years
Judge Paul Housego, who heard the case, said in his decision that the disability plan was designed for employees who could not work. Justice Housego emphasized that it was not discrimination for the scheme not to be ‘more generous’ in view of its special availability to persons with disabilities. He insisted on the figure of those earning more than £50,000 a year, saying that this was a significant amount, even though its market value had halved in 30 years.