Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 372 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Executive Engineer Panchayat(Maa & ... vs Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi & 3 on 7 June, 2017

District Development Officer vs Maganbhai Mohanbhai Sarvaiya on 7 May, 2019

8. We see no reason therefore to take a different view other than the one taken by learned Single Judge, obviously because the issue is concluded by the Division Bench of this Court in Executive Engineer Panchayat (MAA & M) Department & Anr. v. Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi & Anr. (supra). Once having rendered service which was treated as continuous from the initial date of appointment in the year 1978, and respondent No.1 having retired in the year 2007, the Directorate of Pension and Provident Fund was in error in counting his service only from 01.12.2000 and not from 1978.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Salambhai Mangalbhai Khant vs State Of Gujarat on 9 March, 2022

14. From the aforesaid observations which are made by the Coordinate Bench relying upon the various decisions, there is no reason for this Court to deviate from the aforesaid preposition of law. The past services rendered by the petitioners where they have completed 240 days of service as per Section 25B of the ID Act would qualify for pension as laid down by the Division bench in case of Executive Engineer, Panchayat V. Samudabhai Jyotibhai phedi (2017 (4) GLR 2952). Hence, keeping that in mind, a case is made out by the petitioners. Even, recently, this Court relying upon the same, has also dealt with yet another petition being Special Civil Application No.19374 of 2018 and other allied matters decided on 17.12.2020. The said decision has been confirmed by the Division bench in LPA No.470 of 2021 and other allied group appeals by order dated 22.06.2021. In a recent decision passed in SCA No.15110 of 2020 and other allied matters decided on 03.09.2021, the similar preposition has been laid down. The said decision has been confirmed with modification in group of appeals being LPA No.884 of 2021 and allied appeals by order dated 12.10.2021. Paragraph No.6 of the said common oral order reads thus:
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Jadavji Bhimjibhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 7 February, 2022

6 On both these counts, therefore, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefits of payment of Leave Encashment of 300 days to the petitioner as the denial is illegal. The same shall be paid to the petitioner considering the total length of service of the petitioner in accordance with the decision rendered in the case of Executive Engineer Panchayat (Maa and M) Department vs. Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi (supra).
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Naginbhai Ramajibhai Paramar vs State Of Gujarat on 16 September, 2022

23. From the aforesaid observations which are made by the coordinate bench relying upon the various decisions, there is no reason for this Court to deviate from the aforesaid preposition of law. The past services rendered by the petitioners where they have completed 240 days of service as per Section 25B of the ID Act would qualify for pension as laid down by the Division Bench in case of Executive Engineer, Panchayat V. Samudabhai Jyotibhai phedi (2017 (4) GLR 2952). Hence, keeping in view the said proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the considered opinion of this Court, a case is made out by the petitioners. Even, recently, this Court relying upon the same, has also dealt with yet another petition being Special Civil Application No. 19374 of 2018 and other allied matters decided on 17.12.2020. The said decision has been confirmed by the Division bench in LPA No. 470 of 2021 and other allied group of appeals by order dated 22.06.2021. In yet another recent decision passed in SCA No. 15110 of 2020 and Page 15 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 17 20:31:26 IST 2022 C/SCA/1917/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2022 other allied matters decided on 03.09.2021, the similar preposition has been laid down. The said decision has been confirmed with modification in group of appeals being LPA NO. 884 of 2021 and allied appeals by order dated 12.10.2021. Paragraph 6 of the said common order reads thus:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Ramanbhai Tribhovanbhai Patanvadiya vs State Of Gujarat on 5 December, 2023

6. While confirming the aforesaid decision, the Letters Patent bench held thus, "4. Learned Single Judge rightly addressed the issue that only reason which weighed with the authority to deny pension to the petitioner was that after being made permanent, he had not completed ten years of qualifying service, however, if the date of joining of the petitioner, which was 12.12.1986 is considered, the petitioner would complete the qualifying service as per law laid down in the case of Executive Engineer, Panchayat v. Samudabhai Jyotibhai Phedi [2017(4) GLR 2952].
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - N Kariel - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next