Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing The Additional Chief Secretary To ... vs M. Balasubramanian on 22 August, 2023

Shri Pal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 April, 2024

7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, service, though though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjay Ramchandra Wankhede And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 1 September, 2023

7 The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next date of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, wp.5759.2022.judgment.odt (9) for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A G Gharote - Full Document

Bharat Govindrao Kulkarni And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 7 September, 2023

7 The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next date of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be wp.5105.2022.judgment...odt (12) given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A G Gharote - Full Document

Ramtirth Motiramji Bharne And Others vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Rural ... on 11 September, 2023

7 The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next date of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A G Gharote - Full Document

Kailash Chand Pandey vs Uoi And Ors on 21 November, 2023

7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent- Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Sachdeva - Full Document

Basant Kumar Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 February, 2025

7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The 15 petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 6 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hira Ram Rajak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 March, 2025

7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of 8 increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The 15 petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commander vs P.R. Sreekumar on 14 February, 2025

7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Rawal - Full Document

Ranjana A Chaudhari vs Posts on 10 October, 2025

In the said case, the Hon'ble Madras High Court relying on its earlier 7 OA No.1297/2024 judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department and Others Vs. M. Balasubramaniam reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 6525 has held that the applicant in that case has completed one full year of service from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003 and, therefore, the respondents are directed to grant him notional increment.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Tripura vs Sri Santanu Debbarma on 7 April, 2026

7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he Page 9 has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
Tripura High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - T A Goud - Full Document
1   2 Next