Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Pawan Vohra vs The Chairman, Dvb Pension Trust And Anr. on 17 May, 2013

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Power ... vs Smt. Rosy Jain And Ors. on 17 March, 2016

LPA 562/2013 and connected cases Page 15 Chairman, DVB and Ors. (W.P.(C) 618/2001); Smt. Pawan Vohra (supra); Babu Ram Jain v. BSES Yamuna Power Limited (W.P.(C) 1597/1998) and the Division Bench ruling in K.R. Jain (supra) were all in the context of other claims - mostly on account of pending disciplinary proceedings or enhacement of pay benefits etc. for the period prior to 01.07.2002.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Gaurav Bhutani vs The Principal District And Sessions ... on 8 September, 2021

56. No doubt, in the case of Pawan Vohra (supra) the petitioner therein had completed 19 years 3 months and by virtue of Rule 49(3) of the Pension Rules, the service of the petitioner therein was treated to be as 20 years of service but the same was without interpreting the Rule in the manner done by the Division W.P.(C) 4285/2021 Page 26 of 27 Benches in Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra) and also DTC v. Karan Singh, inasmuch as the Rule contemplates rounding up of a fraction to the next nearest half, that is if the period is beyond six months, a Government servant must necessarily have three months service beyond six months to be treated as complete one half-year, which in this case the petitioner did not have. It follows, that when the petitioner was not eligible to submit a notice to retire under Rule 48-A, the plea of Mr. Nanda that the rejection was beyond the period of three months and the petitioner is deemed to have retired is unsustainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Vijay Kumar vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. &Ors. on 10 July, 2013

Major A.S. Dahiya (supra) which I have relied upon in the case of Smt. Pawan Vohra (supra), petitioner will be entitled to add service of 5 years in terms of Rule 48-B of the CCS (Pension) Rules. There is no discussion in any of the judgments relied upon on behalf of respondent no.1/BSES specifically pertaining to Rule 48-B, and hence there is no reason why benefit of Rule 48-B cannot be given in the facts of the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Sh. Raj Singh Rathee vs The Chairman Dvb Pension & Ors on 18 September, 2013

4. Therefore, adopting the ratio in the case of Pawan Vohra (supra) this writ petition is also allowed and it is directed that the petitioner will be deemed to have completed 20 years of qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension. Petitioner will be accordingly granted that monetary W.P.(C) No.339/2011 Page 8 of 9 benefits by the respondent No.1. Impugned orders issued by the respondents are set aside. Respondent No.1 will now pay the necessary amounts to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 9% per annum simple for the period of delay in paying the pensionary benefits from 1.9.2008 till the date of payment.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Kampuri vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd & Anr. on 6 May, 2014

6.1 Apart from the above, reliance was also placed on other judgements of the Single Judges of this court. These being: Smt. Pawan Vohra vs The Chairman, DVB Pension Trust & Anr., dated 17.05.2013, passed in WP(C) 1680/2012; Trilok Chand vs DVB Employee's Terminal Benefit Fund Trust & Ors., dated 20.05.2013, passed in WP(C) 4815/2012; and Tulsi Ram Arya vs Chairman D.V.B. & Ors., dated 31.01.2013, passed in WP(C) 618/2001.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Smt. Leela Wati vs The Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd on 15 October, 2018

15. Relying upon the decision of  "Pawan Vohra" (Supra),  late Sh. Om Pal is also entitled for the benefit of Rule 49 (3) CCS since he had also completed   19   years,   11   months   and   28   days   on   the   date   of   his   voluntary retirement, opted by him  under SVRS­2003. Thus,  late Sh.  Om  Pal will  be considered to have completed 20 years of service on the date of his voluntary retirement, in terms of Rule 48 (A) CCS. Hence, late Sh. Om Pal was entitled Leelawati Vs. The BSES Rajdhani Power ltd.  Page 5 of 7 for the pension under the Rules of SVRS­2003.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1