Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)
Gaurav Bhutani vs The Principal District And Sessions ... on 8 September, 2021 cites

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Uma Rawat & Ors. on 31 August, 2015

56. No doubt, in the case of Pawan Vohra (supra) the petitioner therein had completed 19 years 3 months and by virtue of Rule 49(3) of the Pension Rules, the service of the petitioner therein was treated to be as 20 years of service but the same was without interpreting the Rule in the manner done by the Division W.P.(C) 4285/2021 Page 26 of 27 Benches in Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra) and also DTC v. Karan Singh, inasmuch as the Rule contemplates rounding up of a fraction to the next nearest half, that is if the period is beyond six months, a Government servant must necessarily have three months service beyond six months to be treated as complete one half-year, which in this case the petitioner did not have. It follows, that when the petitioner was not eligible to submit a notice to retire under Rule 48-A, the plea of Mr. Nanda that the rejection was beyond the period of three months and the petitioner is deemed to have retired is unsustainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Smt. Pawan Vohra vs The Chairman, Dvb Pension Trust And Anr. on 17 May, 2013

56. No doubt, in the case of Pawan Vohra (supra) the petitioner therein had completed 19 years 3 months and by virtue of Rule 49(3) of the Pension Rules, the service of the petitioner therein was treated to be as 20 years of service but the same was without interpreting the Rule in the manner done by the Division W.P.(C) 4285/2021 Page 26 of 27 Benches in Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra) and also DTC v. Karan Singh, inasmuch as the Rule contemplates rounding up of a fraction to the next nearest half, that is if the period is beyond six months, a Government servant must necessarily have three months service beyond six months to be treated as complete one half-year, which in this case the petitioner did not have. It follows, that when the petitioner was not eligible to submit a notice to retire under Rule 48-A, the plea of Mr. Nanda that the rejection was beyond the period of three months and the petitioner is deemed to have retired is unsustainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs N.L. Kakkar Presiding Officer, ... on 17 March, 2004

18. It is stated that the period of unauthorised/extra ordinary leave taken is to be excluded while computing the qualifying service of an employee. Reliance in this regard has been placed on judgments of the Supreme Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Balwan Singh and Ors., (2019) 18 SCC 126, Karan Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2019) 19 SCC 726, Delhi Transport Corporation v. Lillu Ram (2017) 11 SCC 407 and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court W.P.(C) 4285/2021 Page 8 of 27 in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Karan Singh bearing W.P.(C) 9029/2011 decided on May 29, 2013.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 40 - M B Lokur - Full Document

State Of Haryana & Ors vs S.K.Singhal on 16 April, 1999

34. Mr. Nanda, in his submissions, has reiterated his contention that, by virtue of the proviso to Rule 48-A (2) of the Pension Rules, the petitioner stood automatically retired on non- refusal of his notice by the respondent within three months. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Tek Chand v. Dile Ram (2001) 3 SCC 290, State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal (1999) 4 SCC 293 and Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam (1977) 4 SCC 441.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 86 - M J Rao - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr vs Jai Kumar Jain on 2 December, 2020

23. It is further stated by Ms. Ahlawat that considering the fact that the petitioner did not complete qualifying service of twenty years under Rule 48-A of the Pension Rules on the date of submission of the Notice dated August 05, 2020 or even on the alleged completion of three months, i.e., November 10, 2020, his request for voluntary retirement has been rejected by the Competent Authority vide letter dated January 06, 2021. It is submitted that, after deducting the period of unauthorised absence/ extra ordinary leave without pay, the petitioner had qualifying service of only 19 years, 8 months and 10 days from February 29, 2000 i.e., the date of joining, to August 05, 2020 i.e., the date of the VRS Notice. Net qualifying service as on the W.P.(C) 4285/2021 Page 10 of 27 date of receipt of VRS Notice by the Authority i.e., August 11, 2020 is 19 years, 8 months and 16 days and finally even as on the completion of the notice period of three months, i.e., November 10, 2020 it is 19 years, 11 months and 15 days. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Jai Kumar Jain bearing W.P.(C) 5424/2017 decided on December 24, 2019 to contend that the petitioner has not completed the qualifying service prescribed.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dtc vs Karan Singh on 29 May, 2013

56. No doubt, in the case of Pawan Vohra (supra) the petitioner therein had completed 19 years 3 months and by virtue of Rule 49(3) of the Pension Rules, the service of the petitioner therein was treated to be as 20 years of service but the same was without interpreting the Rule in the manner done by the Division W.P.(C) 4285/2021 Page 26 of 27 Benches in Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra) and also DTC v. Karan Singh, inasmuch as the Rule contemplates rounding up of a fraction to the next nearest half, that is if the period is beyond six months, a Government servant must necessarily have three months service beyond six months to be treated as complete one half-year, which in this case the petitioner did not have. It follows, that when the petitioner was not eligible to submit a notice to retire under Rule 48-A, the plea of Mr. Nanda that the rejection was beyond the period of three months and the petitioner is deemed to have retired is unsustainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - V K Rao - Full Document
1