Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing The Additional Chief Secretary To ... vs M. Balasubramanian on 8 August, 2022

Om Prakash vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 19 October, 2022

7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be 8 Item No. 06 O.A. No. 1306/2019 treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mukeshbhai Natvarlal Thaker vs State Of Gujarat on 6 January, 2023

7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Kalpanaben Subodbhai Bakshi vs State Of Gujarat on 5 January, 2023

7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 07 20:49:24 IST 2023 C/SCA/9310/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/01/2023 he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Surender Singh Dalal vs Union Of India & Anr. on 28 April, 2023

7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Om Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 January, 2023

7.The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated (Downloaded on 14/01/2023 at 12:07:13 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-15579/2022] 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V K Mathur - Full Document
1