Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Anil Kumar Tyagi vs Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal ... on 27 March, 2017 cites

State Of U.P.& Ors vs Luxmi Kant Shukla on 19 August, 2011

12. The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Luxmi Kant Shukla, (2011) 9 SCC 532, referring to somewhat similar provision in Fundamental Rule 56 and in particular clauses (c) and (d) had observed that in case of "a contemplated disciplinary proceedings" the government servant should be informed about the rejection before the expiry of his notice. The rejection in the present case was communicated within time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 12 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Balram Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 1 September, 1987

In Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India and Another 1987 Supp. SCC 228, the Government employee had sought voluntary retirement with effect from 31.03.1981 vide letter dated 28.01.1981. Later, the employee changed his mind and vide letter dated 31.01.1981 had sought withdrawal of the notice of voluntary retirement. The authorities disallowed the request for withdrawal. Rule 48-A (4) of WP(C) No.26/2017 Page 12 of 14 the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 precludes a Government servant from withdrawing his notice except with specific approval of the authority. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that retirement was to take effect from a subsequent date prospectively. The normal rule which relates to withdrawal of resignation would not apply because sub-Rule (4) to 48-A permits withdrawal with the approval of the authority. Further, while deciding whether or not to grant approval the statutory authority must act reasonable and rationally. In the said case the authority had rejected the application for the reason that the Government servant had not indicated reasons for withdrawal. The Supreme Court observed that the letter of withdrawal had sufficiently indicated the reason for change of mind as persistent persuasion of friends and staff. Some degree of flexibility was required when this flexibility did not jeopardise administration. The dictum in the said judgment is of no relevance in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 359 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Sheelkumar Jain vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 28 July, 2011

18. Lastly, reliance was placed on Sheelkumar Jain Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 197. This judgment draws difference between the effect of resignation and voluntary retirement. Resignation under the applicable rules entailed WP(C) No.26/2017 Page 13 of 14 forfeiture of past service and consequently an employee was not entitled to pensionary benefits, whereas in voluntary retirement pensionary benefits were payable. In the said case the employee had written the letter dated 16.09.1991 which was before the formulation and notification of the 1995 Pension Scheme. Neither the employee not the employer was aware and knew the difference between resignation and voluntary retirement under the Scheme. Referring to the fact that the employee had rendered 20 years of qualifying service and had given notice of not less than 90 days to the appointing authority of his intention to leave service, it was treated as a case of voluntarily retirement even if the employer had used the term "resigned". The said decision is of no application to the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 49 - A K Patnaik - Full Document
1