Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.30 seconds)Harish Chand vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. And 3 Others on 9 August, 2021
17. The objection was raised before learned Single Judge by the appellant-Corporation that the present matter is distingishable qua Sobha Ram Yadav (supra) on the ground that Sobha Ram was issued appointment letter in pursuance of the mandate of this Court in favour of Sobha Ram Yadav (supra) and the similar benefits cannot be extended to the petitioners since their appointment was after the date of judgment in Harish Chand (Supra) as their initial engagement was as muster roll employees and as per pension rules, muster roll employees are not entitled for any pensionary benefit.
Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs G.Mohamed Ammenudeen & Ors on 28 September, 1999
In so far as the petitioner No. 29 is concerned, his case has not been considered on the ground that he was above 37 years of age on 1st January, 1999. The learned Judge, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Vs. G. Mohamed Ammenudeen & Ors., 1999 (3) SCC 2439, found such rejection to be untenable and the observations are as follows:-
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularised in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularised under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularised of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularised. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension."
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 368 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Amar Nath (Ex-Junior Engineer) vs U. P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru' ... on 7 May, 2012
15. Consequently, the petitioners have preferred Writ A Nos. 6069 of 2019 (Amar Nath and 3 others vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Lucknow and 4 others) connected with Writ A No.6084 of 2019 (Harish Chand and 5 others vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Lucknow and 4 others) and Writ A No.9211 of 2019 (Satish Kumar and 11 others vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Lucknow through its M.D. and 6 others) seeking direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners' appointment with effect from 12.12.2002 at par with Sobha Ram Yadav and grant all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, earned leave, deduction of G.P.F., group insurance, gratuity, bonus etc.
JUDGEMENT PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
Managing Director U.P. Power ... vs Om Prakash And Another on 12 September, 2022
7. Meanwhile, the Corporation had challenged the judgement and order dated 20.11.2004 before Apex Court by preferring Civil Appeal No.3885 of 2006 arising out of SLP (C) No.7236 of 2005 (Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. & ors vs. Om Prakash & ors). Finally, the Apex Court vide order dated 01.09.2006 had allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Division Bench to decide all the issues raised by the appellant on merit. For ready reference the order dated 01.09.2006 is reproduced herein below:-
Vidyut Seva Ayog, U.P. Power Corp. Ltd. & ... vs Sobha Ram Yadav on 13 August, 2010
17. The objection was raised before learned Single Judge by the appellant-Corporation that the present matter is distingishable qua Sobha Ram Yadav (supra) on the ground that Sobha Ram was issued appointment letter in pursuance of the mandate of this Court in favour of Sobha Ram Yadav (supra) and the similar benefits cannot be extended to the petitioners since their appointment was after the date of judgment in Harish Chand (Supra) as their initial engagement was as muster roll employees and as per pension rules, muster roll employees are not entitled for any pensionary benefit.
Ram Shankar Singh And Ors. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 19 April, 1955
20. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi further submitted that in response to the order dated 24.9.2018 the petitioner accepted the appointment and joined the Corporation without any objection and therefore, on the principle of acquiscence no benefit can be extended to the petitioners. He submitted that in similar facts and circumstances, one Rama Shanker filed Writ A No.9633 of 2021, wherein he had prayed for pensionary benefits and learned Single Judge vide judgement and order dated 10.08.2021 had dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was regularized vide order dated 03.03.2014. Neither he had challenged the regularization order nor there was any effort to this effect and therefore, he cannot get any benefits retrospectively. The aforesaid judgement had been affirmed by the Division Bench vide judgement and order dated 28.09.2021 passed in Special Appeal No.221 of 2021 (Rama Shankar vs. State of UP and 7 others) with following observations:-