Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 53 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Gujarat vs Ranabhai Ajmalbhai Harijan, Since ... on 10 April, 2018

Chief Executive And Vice Chairman, ... vs Pravinbhai Meghjibhai Kotia on 4 August, 2021

5. The issue and the controversy of the kind and nature involved here was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Ranabhai Ajmalbhai Harijan, since deced. Through legal heirs being Letters Patent Appeal NO.1518 of 2017 decided on 10th April, 2018. The learned Single Judge while deciding the Special Civil Application No.18036 of 2013 held that pension to the original petitioner - respondent was liable to be granted taking into consideration the entire service the petitioner rendered including those years of service when he worked as a Rojamdar from the date of his initial appointment as Rojamdar. The contention on behalf of the State was that since the original petitioner - respondent was granted benefit of regular pay-scale with effect from 01st April, 1998, and he had retired with effect from 30th September, 2007, he did not complete the requisite qualifying service of 10 years to be eligible for pension. It was the contention that since regular pay-scale was granted with effect from 01st April, 1998, the pensionable period will have to be counted from the said date.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Chief Executive And Vice Chairman, ... vs Ahmedhussain Abdulkarim Sherwani on 4 August, 2021

5. The issue and the controversy of the kind and nature involved here was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Ranabhai Ajmalbhai Harijan, since deced. Through legal heirs being Letters Patent Appeal NO.1518 of 2017 decided on 10th April, 2018. The learned Single Judge while deciding the Special Civil Application No.18036 of 2013 held that pension to the original petitioner - respondent was liable to be granted taking into consideration the entire service the petitioner rendered including those years of service when he worked as a Rojamdar from the date of his initial appointment as Rojamdar. The contention on behalf of the State was that since the original petitioner - respondent was granted benefit of regular pay-scale with effect from 01st April, 1998, and he had retired with effect from 30th September, 2007, he did not complete the requisite qualifying service of 10 years to be eligible for pension. It was the contention that since regular pay-scale was granted with effect from 01st April, 1998, the pensionable period will have to be counted from the said date.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Chief Executive And Vice Chairman, ... vs Ahmedhussain Abdulkarim Sherwani on 4 August, 2021

5. The issue and the controversy of the kind and nature involved here was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Ranabhai Ajmalbhai Harijan, since deced. Through legal heirs being Letters Patent Appeal NO.1518 of 2017 decided on 10th April, 2018. The learned Single Judge while deciding the Special Civil Application No.18036 of 2013 held that pension to the original petitioner - respondent was liable to be granted taking into consideration the entire service the petitioner rendered including those years of service when he worked as a Rojamdar from the date of his initial appointment as Rojamdar. The contention on behalf of the State was that since the original petitioner - respondent was granted benefit of regular pay-scale with effect from 01st April, 1998, and he had retired with effect from 30th September, 2007, he did not complete the requisite qualifying service of 10 years to be eligible for pension. It was the contention that since regular pay-scale was granted with effect from 01st April, 1998, the pensionable period will have to be counted from the said date.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Chief Executive And Vice Chairman, ... vs Kiritbhai Mahipatbhai Maheta on 4 August, 2021

5. The issue and the controversy of the kind and nature involved here was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Ranabhai Ajmalbhai Harijan, since deced. Through legal heirs being Letters Patent Appeal NO.1518 of 2017 decided on 10th April, 2018. The learned Single Judge while deciding the Special Civil Application No.18036 of 2013 held that pension to the original petitioner - respondent was liable to be granted taking into consideration the entire service the petitioner rendered including those years of service when he worked as a Rojamdar from the date of his initial appointment as Rojamdar. The contention on behalf of the State was that since the original petitioner - respondent was granted benefit of regular pay-scale with effect from 01st April, 1998, and he had retired with effect from 30th September, 2007, he did not complete the requisite qualifying service of 10 years to be eligible for pension. It was the contention that since regular pay-scale was granted with effect from 01st April, 1998, the pensionable period will have to be counted from the said date.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Chief Executive And Vice Chairman, ... vs Nathalal Fakira Kotia on 4 August, 2021

5. The issue and the controversy of the kind and nature involved here was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Ranabhai Ajmalbhai Harijan, since deced. Through legal heirs being Letters Patent Appeal NO.1518 of 2017 decided on 10th April, 2018. The learned Single Judge while deciding the Special Civil Application No.18036 of 2013 held that pension to the original petitioner - respondent was liable to be granted taking into consideration the entire service the petitioner rendered including those years of service when he worked as a Rojamdar from the date of his initial appointment as Rojamdar. The contention on behalf of the State was that since the original petitioner - respondent was granted benefit of regular pay-scale with effect from 01st April, 1998, and he had retired with effect from 30th September, 2007, he did not complete the requisite qualifying service of 10 years to be eligible for pension. It was the contention that since regular pay-scale was granted with effect from 01st April, 1998, the pensionable period will have to be counted from the said date.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Chief Executive And Vice Chairman, ... vs Nathalal Fakira Kotia on 4 August, 2021

5. The issue and the controversy of the kind and nature involved here was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Ranabhai Ajmalbhai Harijan, since deced. Through legal heirs being Letters Patent Appeal NO.1518 of 2017 decided on 10th April, 2018. The learned Single Judge while deciding the Special Civil Application No.18036 of 2013 held that pension to the original petitioner - respondent was liable to be granted taking into consideration the entire service the petitioner rendered including those years of service when he worked as a Rojamdar from the date of his initial appointment as Rojamdar. The contention on behalf of the State was that since the original petitioner - respondent was granted benefit of regular pay-scale with effect from 01st April, 1998, and he had retired with effect from 30th September, 2007, he did not complete the requisite qualifying service of 10 years to be eligible for pension. It was the contention that since regular pay-scale was granted with effect from 01st April, 1998, the pensionable period will have to be counted from the said date.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Chief Executive And Vice Chairman, ... vs Pravinbhai Meghjibhai Kotia on 4 August, 2021

5. The issue and the controversy of the kind and nature involved here was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Ranabhai Ajmalbhai Harijan, since deced. Through legal heirs being Letters Patent Appeal NO.1518 of 2017 decided on 10th April, 2018. The learned Single Judge while deciding the Special Civil Application No.18036 of 2013 held that pension to the original petitioner - respondent was liable to be granted taking into consideration the entire service the petitioner rendered including those years of service when he worked as a Rojamdar from the date of his initial appointment as Rojamdar. The contention on behalf of the State was that since the original petitioner - respondent was granted benefit of regular pay-scale with effect from 01st April, 1998, and he had retired with effect from 30th September, 2007, he did not complete the requisite qualifying service of 10 years to be eligible for pension. It was the contention that since regular pay-scale was granted with effect from 01st April, 1998, the pensionable period will have to be counted from the said date.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Chief Executive And Vice Chairman, ... vs Karubhai Lakhmanbhai Chamundiya on 5 August, 2021

5. The issue and the controversy of the kind and nature involved here was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Ranabhai Ajmalbhai Harijan, since deced. Through legal heirs being Letters Patent Appeal NO.1518 of 2017 decided on 10th April, 2018. The learned Single Judge while deciding the Special Civil Application No.18036 of 2013 held that pension to the original petitioner - respondent was liable to be granted taking into consideration the entire service the petitioner rendered including those years of service when he worked as a Rojamdar from the date of his initial appointment as Rojamdar. The contention on behalf of the State was that since the original petitioner - respondent was granted benefit of regular pay-scale with effect from 01st April, 1998, and he had retired with effect from 30th September, 2007, he did not complete the requisite qualifying service of 10 years to be eligible for pension. It was the contention that since regular pay- scale was granted with effect from 01st April, 1998, the pensionable period will have to be counted from the said date.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next