Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.49 seconds)
Tarkeshwar Tiwari vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan on 23 May, 2025 cites

Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018

1987 was to be followed scrupulously, the University could not have granted subsequent option of switch over. But 2469 employees were allowed to ―come over‖ to GPF after the cut-off date. Going by various communications placed before the Court, such employees were allowed full benefits under GPF. The case of the present respondent employees was not, in any way, different from such 2469 employees. 34.3. The University being a Central University, its employees would rank on similar footing as that of the organisations like IITs and AIIMS. If extensions were granted to employees of the IITs, the employees of the University were also entitled to similar benefit. 34.4. The Division Bench was, therefore, justified in setting aside the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Shashi Kiran [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] batch of cases but affirming the view in other two batches.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4774 - M M Shrivastava - Full Document

Kavita Gulati Batra vs Union Of India Through Its on 17 December, 2013

1987 was to be followed scrupulously, the University could not have granted subsequent option of switch over. But 2469 employees were allowed to ―come over‖ to GPF after the cut-off date. Going by various communications placed before the Court, such employees were allowed full benefits under GPF. The case of the present respondent employees was not, in any way, different from such 2469 employees. 34.3. The University being a Central University, its employees would rank on similar footing as that of the organisations like IITs and AIIMS. If extensions were granted to employees of the IITs, the employees of the University were also entitled to similar benefit. 34.4. The Division Bench was, therefore, justified in setting aside the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Shashi Kiran [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] batch of cases but affirming the view in other two batches.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990

48. It was against these three sub-categories coming from the same category of employees that the argument of discrimination was considered by the Division Bench. Such was not the case in Krishena Kumar [Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112] or Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran [Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal, (2015) 12 SCC 51 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 315] . The matter was further considered by the Division Bench in the context of the employees of educational institutions such as IITs, who are directly under the Central Government, just as the employees of the University, which is a Central University.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 392 - K N Saikia - Full Document

Smt. Shashi Kiran And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 August, 2016

19. Further by placing reliance on the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranch in the case of Kabir Dasgupta vs. Union of India and others in W.P.(S) No.5777/2019 and other connected case, vide order dated 4.1.2024 by placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra) decided the said petitions in favour of the petitioners therein
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 22 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Dr. R.N. Virmani & Ors. vs University Of Delhi And Anr. on 30 April, 2014

We are concerned with only 75 persons. On the other hand, the bulk of people, namely, 2469 employees were granted the choice of reverse switch over and they were allowed all the benefits under GPF. It can reasonably be said that when the Notification dated 1-5-1987 was issued, the authorities were conscious of the possibility that all the employees may ―come over‖ to GPF. With that possibility in mind, the fund was constituted and the affairs were arranged. The shift of those 75 employees would not in any way affect the strength and the character of the fund if a direction that the entire contribution made by the authorities be returned with reasonable rate of interest is issued. These 75 petitioners had approached the Court in the year 2010. At this length of time, it is not as if any floodgates are going to open and there will be drain on the resources of the 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 58 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs State. A direction can, therefore, be issued, as was done by the learned Single Judge in para 20 of his judgment in R.N. Virmani [R.N. Virmani v. University of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2799] batch of cases and which aspect was mentioned in the Letter dated 23-1-2017 referred to in para 31.4 hereinabove, for recouping the contribution under CPF with 8% simple interest per annum.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 19 - R Shakdher - Full Document

D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982

Nakara [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] cannot, therefore, be an authority for this case.‖ Having observed that the Pension Scheme and the Provident Fund Scheme were structurally different, it was then concluded that the retirees in both categories did not belong to the same class and that there was no discrimination. The challenge was, therefore, rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2485 - D A Desai - Full Document

University Of Delhi vs Shashi Kiran And Ors. Etc. Etc. on 10 May, 2022

45. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect and the legal position based upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, has gone through the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and found therefrom that the view expressed therein based upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in University of Delhi v. Shashi Kiran (supra), requires no interference, since therein also the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has come to a view that in absence of any specific option furnished by one or the other employee of the organization, there cannot be any deemed option.‖
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 22 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Union Of India And Anr vs S.L. Verma And Ors on 28 November, 2006

Therefore, we find no infirmity with the learned Single Judge's order, in Virmani's case.‖ 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 32 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs ―19. It is argued by the learned counsel for the University that once the learned Single Judge held that extension of the option was not authorized, there was no question of granting relief. Furthermore, in respect of those who had not opted for CPF, but whose contributions continued in the scheme, the court should not have granted relief, given the passage of time and the voluntary conduct of the teaching staff and officials. It was urged that the learned Single Judge erred in relying on Union of India v. S.L. Verma (2006) 12 SCC 53; in any case, the observations relied on were mere passing remarks, in the nature of obiter and clearly had no binding effect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 58 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next