Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.26 seconds)
S B Nagaraja vs Central Silk Board, M/O Textiles on 13 February, 2020 cites

Union Of India vs Ex.Hav George Varghese on 1 August, 2014

The Full Bench, in our considered opinion, came to the correct conclusion in laying down that Government servant retiring on last day of the preceding month is deemed to have become pensioner on the next day and therefore such pensioners also entitled for the benefit of enhanced gratuity. We fail to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for respondents, that this decision has bearing on the question before us. This case does not in any manner assist the respondents. Indeed, it supports the view canvassed by the petitioners before us that a person retiring on the last day of the preceding month ceases to be borne on the establishment with effect from beginning of first day of the succeeding month and he would not be entitled for payment of any emoluments as soon as first day of the succeeding month commences, i.e., after 12.00 'O' clock in the night. The decision of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Union of India v. George (supra) is also brought to our notice. In the said judgment, the question before the Division Bench was whether the respondent who was in service till 31.12.1995 is entitled to the payment of retiral benefits at the rates as prevalent on that day or at the rate as revised with effect from 1.1.1996. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Kerala Bench upheld the claim of retired persons taking the view that those persons became pensioners on 1.1.1996.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

The Secretary Ministry Of Finance, ... vs Prabhakar Match Industries, ... on 19 September, 1988

7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 61 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next