Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Shyam Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush ... on 17 February, 2023

Shiv Kumar Yadav And Ors. vs State Of U.P.Thru ... on 25 April, 2023

Considering the fact that issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the said two judgments, the writ petition is disposed of holding that the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of the judgments of this Court in case of Dr. Shyam Kumar versus State of U.P. and another as well as Tirath Raj Singh and others versus State of U.P. and others. The benefits of counting the services rendered by the petitioners prior to regularization shall ensue in favour of the petitioners with all consequential benefits.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Bhatia - Full Document

Jai Prakash Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 March, 2023

All the four judgments relied upon by the counsel for respondents pertains to Ordinance of 2020 followed by Act of 2021. So far as Act of 2021 is concerned, the same is applicable only upon the employees of State Government. There is no similar Act which is applicable with regard to employees of the Non-Centralized Services of the Development Authority. Even otherwise Act of 2021 is already read down by this Court by judgment dated 17.02.2023 passed in Writ-A No.8968 of 2022 (Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others).
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - V Chaudhary - Full Document

Smt. Jaya Malik vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 11 August, 2023

(iv). Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2023 (3) ADJ 138 (LB). The controversy involved in the aforesaid writ petition was regarding the interpretation and application Section 2 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021 i.e. U.P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 for counting qualifying service for the purpose of pension with regard to work charge employees, daily wager employees, adhoc appointee against the post as well as Seasonal Collection Amin.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R Misra - Full Document

Km. Kaushal Singh vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 11 August, 2023

(iv). Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2023 (3) ADJ 138 (LB). The controversy involved in the aforesaid writ petition was regarding the interpretation and application Section 2 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021 i.e. U.P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 for counting qualifying service for the purpose of pension with regard to work charge employees, daily wager employees, adhoc appointee against the post as well as Seasonal Collection Amin.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R Misra - Full Document

Ram Sewak Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 February, 2024

The issue before the learned Single Judge in Dr. Shyam Kumar (supra) arose in the context of different categories of employees, such as work-charged employees, daily-wagers, ad hoc employees and seasonal collection peon/ amin. All these various categories of employees were not regular employees in their various establishments, appointed on either temporary or permanent posts. All of them were engaged on one or the other kind of terms of employment, such as work-charged employees or daily-wagers or ad hoc with the common genre being that the appointment was dehors the Rules and not an appointment temporary or permanent on a sanctioned post in the establishment. They were regularized in service later on, but wanted their services for the period that they were not part of the establishment, in one capacity or the other, to be counted for the purpose of granting them post retiral benefits, treating it as qualifying service.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manisha Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 21 March, 2023

So far as Act of 2021 is concerned, the same is applicable only upon the employees of State Government. There is no similar Act which is applicable with regard to employees of the Centralized Services of the Development Authority. Even otherwise Act of 2021 is already read down by this Court by judgment dated 17.02.2023 passed in Writ-A No.8968 of 2022 (Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others).
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V Chaudhary - Full Document

Sushila Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. The Secy. Forest U.P. ... on 2 March, 2023

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to receive all pensionary benefits as has already been held in the judgment and order dated 17.02.2023 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, leading one is Writ-A No.8968 of 2022 (Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & another), wherein issue relating to interpretation and application of Section 2 of the Act of 2021 for counting qualifying service for the purpose of pension with regard to daily wager has been dealt with in detail by this Court. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads:
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Chaudhary - Full Document

Chaman Khan vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 11 April, 2023

So far as Act of 2021 is concerned, the same is applicable only upon the employees of State Government. There is no similar Act which is applicable with regard to employees of the Non-Centralized Services of the Nagar Panchayat. Even otherwise Act of 2021 is already read down by this Court by judgment dated 17.02.2023 passed in Writ-A No.8968 of 2022 (Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others).
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V Chaudhary - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next