Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)
Documents citing Prem Chand And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 May, 2005

Union Of India vs Sh.Dharam Singh & Ors. on 29 July, 2011

7. Though the Tribunal in its order dated 3rd December, 1997 in O.A No.2724/1992 titled as „Prem Chand & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.‟ had held that the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission shall be applicable in respect of other similarly placed Packers of the Department of Post and that they shall entitled for arrears as well, however, despite this categorical stipulation, the relief was declined to the respondents in the present writ, who are Packers in the Department of Post. Since the relief was not granted by the petitioner it ultimately lead to the filing of the contempt petition being CP No. 333/2000 against them.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Mishra & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 February, 2013

Thus, no review is permissible. The Office Memorandums dated 9.9.1975 & 14.11.2007 based on which review is being sought, especially on the presumption that the Government servants living in their own houses are eligible to HRA, is not of much relevance in view of the following observations of the Tribunal in para 6.1 of its order whose review is being sought, namely, However, the point remains that the issue here is different. The issue under adjudication is not regarding the eligibility or otherwise for HRA of an employee living in his own accommodation but whether such HRA can be claimed even when the concerned employee has been allotted a Government accommodation which offer he has declined. Since this issue has specifically come for consideration of the Apex Court at length in the judgment cited by the respondents, we would dwell on it. and then the Tribunal has proceeded to passed its order on the basis of the decision in the case of Director, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kesargod & Ors (supra), which squarely covers the issue under consideration as observed by the Tribunal hereinabove. The review applicants contend that the Tribunal erred in holding this view. That being so, the remedy would lie in an appeal against this order and not in review as is being sought herein.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1