Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam vs Sri Mujibullah Khan. on 2 April, 2019

Nagar Nigam Gorakhpur Thru Nagar Ayukt vs Suresh Pandey And 2 Others on 12 September, 2019

38. The question with regard to the applicability of the P.G. Act, 1972 to the Municipal Corporations of Kanpur and Gorakhpur came up for consideration in a recent judgment in the case of Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Vs. Mujib Ullah Khan and another with Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur Vs. Ram Shanker Yadav and another13, and taking into view the provisions of the P.G.Act, 1972 and the notification dated 08.01.1982 issued under Section 1 (3) (c), the P.G.Act, 1972 was held to be applicable. The relevant observations in the aforementioned judgment are being extracted below :-
Allahabad High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 1 - Y K Srivastava - Full Document

Bareilly Nagar Nigam vs Smt. Sudama And Others on 13 November, 2019

13. The issue with regard to the applicability of the P.G. Act, 1972 to municipal corporations, governed in terms of the provisions contained under the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 is no longer res integra in view of the pronouncement made in the judgment in the case of Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Vs. Mujib Ullah Khan & Ors. with Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur Vs. Ram Shanker Yadav & Anr.2 wherein taking into view of the provisions of the P.G. Act, 1972 and the notification dated 08.01.1982 issued under Section 1(3)(c), the P.G. Act, 1972 was held to be applicable. The relevant observations made in the aforesaid judgment are being extracted below:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Y K Srivastava - Full Document

Sri Samir Kumar Ghosh vs The State Of Tripura on 29 May, 2020

[6] ​The question of an employee of the Municipalities being governed by the said Act has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in case of ​Nagar Nigam Gorakhpur​(supra)​. In the said case, the respondent was an employee of Municipal Corporation, Kanpur. The employee had claimed gratuity before the controlling authority under the said Act. It was argued on behalf of the Municipal Corporation that the gratuity payable to the employee is in accordance with the Retirement Page - ​5​ of 1 ​ 1 Benefits and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1962 and not in terms of the said Act. It was argued that as per a provision of the UP Act, the said Act would not apply to Government or local bodies. The Supreme Court noted that the Central Government had published a notification dated 8​th January, 1982 providing that in specified local bodies in which 10 or more persons are employed or were employed in any day preceding 12 months would be covered by the said Act. Referring to Section 14 of the said Act giving overriding effect to the provisions of the Act over other statutes, the Supreme Court held that employees of the municipalities would be governed by the said Act, notwithstanding any statutory provision contained to the contrary in the state Act. Relevant observations made by the Supreme Court read as under :
Tripura High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Smt. Ratna Roy (Aged 63 Years) vs The State Of Tripura (To Be Represented ... on 27 June, 2022

11. On going through the decision of this Court in Samir Kumar Ghosh(supra), it comes to fore that the petitioner of that writ petition was serving under Agartala Municipal Corporation as LDC, and on his retirement gratuity was sanctioned by the AMC taking into consideration the ceiling limit of Rs.4,00,000/- and the learned Single Judge referring to its earlier decision in Bhupati Debnath(supra) and the case of Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur vs. Ram Shankar Yadav & Anr., (2019) 6 SCC directed the Page 20 of 22 respondents-AMC to calculate the gratuity of the petitioner applying revised ceiling limit of Rs.10,00,000/-.
Tripura High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Lodh - Full Document

Sri Bhaskar Debbarma(Aged 64 Years) vs Agartala Municipal Corporation on 27 June, 2022

11. On going through the decision of this Court in Samir Kumar Ghosh(supra), it comes to fore that the petitioner of that writ petition was serving under Agartala Municipal Corporation as LDC, and on his retirement gratuity was sanctioned by the AMC taking into consideration the ceiling limit of Rs.4,00,000/- and the learned Single Judge referring to its earlier decision in Bhupati Debnath(supra) and the case of Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur vs. Ram Shankar Yadav & Anr., (2019) 6 SCC directed the respondents-AMC to calculate the gratuity of the petitioner applying revised ceiling limit of Rs.10,00,000/-.
Tripura High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Lodh - Full Document
1