Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)Gujarat Energy Tranmission ... vs Pravin B Raval on 28 August, 2017
(13) Apart from the fact that as the petition was
barred by res judicata it could not have
been entertained, in the considered opinion
of this Court, in absence of any directions
issued for quashing and setting aside the
dismissal order, the relief seeking retiral
benefits cannot be granted. Rule 25(i)(e) of
Pension Rules, 2002 prohibits the
consideration of the service rendered by an
employee prior to his resignation, removal
and dismissal as qualifying service for the
purpose of pension. Thus, till the dismissal
order dated 14.03.2005 remains in existence,
no relief of granting the pay, pension or
retirement benefits can be granted to the
respondentemployee. The judgement cited at
the bar in the case of Gujarat Energy
Transmission Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs.
Pravin B. Raval (supra) and Hukmi Chand
(supra) cannot come to the rescue of the
respondent as the same will not apply to the
facts of the present case.
Hukmi Chand vs Jhabua Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., ... on 1 October, 1997
(13) Apart from the fact that as the petition was
barred by res judicata it could not have
been entertained, in the considered opinion
of this Court, in absence of any directions
issued for quashing and setting aside the
dismissal order, the relief seeking retiral
benefits cannot be granted. Rule 25(i)(e) of
Pension Rules, 2002 prohibits the
consideration of the service rendered by an
employee prior to his resignation, removal
and dismissal as qualifying service for the
purpose of pension. Thus, till the dismissal
order dated 14.03.2005 remains in existence,
no relief of granting the pay, pension or
retirement benefits can be granted to the
respondentemployee. The judgement cited at
the bar in the case of Gujarat Energy
Transmission Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs.
Pravin B. Raval (supra) and Hukmi Chand
(supra) cannot come to the rescue of the
respondent as the same will not apply to the
facts of the present case.
Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000
C/LPA/399/2017 JUDGMENT
(17) At this juncture reference may be made to
the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Kunhayammed (supra) wherein it has been
held that "In spite of a petition for
special leave to appeal having been filed,
the judgment, decree or order against which
leave to appeal has been sought for,
continues to be final, effective and binding
as between the parties. Once leave to appeal
has been granted, the finality of the
judgment, decree or order appealed against
is put in jeopardy though it continues to be
binding and effective between the parties
unless it is a nullity or unless the Court
may pass a specific order staying or
suspending the operation or execution of the
judgment, decree or order under challenge."
1