Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)
Prof Harish Chandra Chaudhary And 2 ... vs The Union Of India And 3 Others on 2 May, 2025 cites

Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009

In Union of India Vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 the Supreme Court held where an employee governed by CPF Scheme did not opt for pension scheme, despite several chances given to him, his representation 22 years after his retirement, with willingness to refund the amount cannot be permitted to switch over to pension scheme. If his request is accepted, the effect would be to permit him to secure double benefit. There was no recurring or continuing cause of action to file writ petition after such a long time. If was further held that when he had notice or knowledge of the availability of option he could not be heard to contend that he did not have written intimation of option.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 716 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Neerja Tiku vs School Of Planning And Architecture & ... on 21 March, 2023

33. Learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in Neerja Tiku vs. School of Planning and Architecture and another, 2024:DHC:2891 to hold that the decision of Supreme Court in University of Delhi Vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra), is a judgment in rem and not in personam. Learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that the grounds urged by the Central Government to reject the resolution of BHU for extending the benefit of Delhi High Court also is unsustainable. Therefore, on merits, we find that learned Single Judge has accepted the claim of appellants. The only reason on which relief has been denied to the appellants is the submission of the respondents noticed in para 29 of the judgment, which is reproduced:-
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Professor Mrittunjay Bhattacharyya vs Executive Council B.H.U. Varanasi & ... on 12 August, 2011

9. It appears that the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission Report were implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1996 which substantially favoured the employees covered under the Pension scheme. The employees of BHU who had opted to continue under CPF scheme made representations to be given one more opportunity to opt to pension scheme. A Committee was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor to consider this request. The Committee submitted its report on 13.1.2001 recommending grant of one more opportunity to exercise such option within a period of two months. This recommendation was initially accepted by the Vice-Chancellor of the BHU on 20th March, 2001 and 18th January, 2002. However, when the matter was taken to Executive Council of the BHU in its meeting held on 19/20 July, 2002, the Council regretted to approve this decision of the Vice-Chancellor. The request of the BHU for permitting further opportunity to exercise option was also rejected by the Government of India and the UGC on 22.7.2003, 23.9.2003 and 20.10.2003. All such decisions came to be challenged in writ petition nos.32101 of 2004 (Dr. V.P. Singh & Others Vs. Executive Council Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi & Others) and 28790 of 2004 (Professor Mrittunjay Bhattacharyya Vs. Executive Council, B.H.U., Varanasi & Another). Many of the petitioners in this bunch were also the petitioners in earlier round of litigation inter-se between the parties on the same subject. In para 24 of the counter affidavit BHU has stated that petitioner nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25 & 26 were the petitioners in writ petition no.32101 of 2004.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1