Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing Babu Ram Jain vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. on 4 August, 2011

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

Rosy Jain vs Gnct Of Delhi & Ors. on 9 July, 2013

For the sake of completion of narration I must refer to the fact that the counsel for the Pension Fund has referred before me a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in the case titled as Babu Ram Jain Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd in W.P.(C) 1597/1998 decided on 4.8.2011 and first para of this judgment directs deletion of Delhi Vidyut Board Employees Provident Terminal Fund 2002 and substitutes in its place BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (BYPL) ie holding the liabilities for the terminal benefits etc to be of the DISCOMS/transferee companies and not of the Pension Fund. While disposing of the W.P.(C) 1597/1998, the learned Single Judge also in para 11 specifically directs the DISCOMS ie M/sBYPL to pay to the petitioners all consequential benefits by way of arrears of salary and other W.P.(C) No.4532/2010 Page 5 of 17 retiral benefits."
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Iqbal Chand vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 31 January, 2013

For the sake of completion of narration I must refer to the fact that the counsel for the Pension Fund has referred before me a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in the case titled as Babu Ram Jain Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd in W.P.(C) 1597/1998 decided on 4.8.2011 and first para of this WPC 13834-2009&conn. Page 10 of 16 judgment directs deletion of Delhi Vidyut Board Employees Provident Terminal Fund 2002 and substitutes in its place BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (BYPL) ie holding the liabilities for the terminal benefits etc to be of the DISCOMS/transferee companies and not of the Pension Fund. While disposing of the W.P.(C) 1597/1998, the learned Single Judge also in para 11 specifically directs the DISCOMS ie M/sBYPL to pay to the petitioners all consequential benefits by way of arrears of salary and other retiral benefits.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Rai Singh Dahiya vs N.D.P.L. & Anr. on 8 March, 2013

For the sake of completion of narration I must refer to the fact that the counsel for the Pension Fund has referred before me a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in the case titled as Babu Ram Jain Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd in W.P.(C) 1597/1998 decided on 4.8.2011 and first para of this judgment directs deletion of Delhi Vidyut Board Employees Provident Terminal Fund 2002 and substitutes in its place BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (BYPL) ie holding the liabilities for the terminal benefits etc to be of the DISCOMS/transferee companies and not of the Pension Fund. While disposing of the W.P.(C) 1597/1998, the learned Single Judge also in para 11 specifically directs the DISCOMS ie M/sBYPL to pay to the petitioners all consequential benefits by way of arrears of salary and other retiral benefits.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V J Mehta - Full Document

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

Apart from the above, reliance is also placed on the judgement of this court in the case of: Babu Ram Jain vs BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., dated 04.08.2011, passed in WP(C) 1597/1998. To be noted, this was a judgement of a Single Judge of this court which was carried in appeal by the respondent therein to the Division Bench, which was numbered as LPA No. 113/2013. The Division Bench, however, dismissed the appeal of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. on the ground that there was a delay of 541 days. I am informed that the matter has been carried in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, I am told, has stayed the operation of the judgement of the Division Bench.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - R Shakdher - Full Document
1