Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)
A Govindarajan vs D/O Atomic Energy on 15 November, 2022 cites

Pepsu Road Transport Corp., Patiala vs Mangal Singh & Ors on 12 May, 2011

In any view of the matter, the issue in the present case is covered by the judgment in PEPSU Road Transport Corporation vs. Mangal Singh (supra) and we do not propose to take any different view in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondents has also contended that in so far as the outstanding amount of CPF is concerned the said amount could have been deducted by virtue of Regulation 24 and which amount is to be adjusted against death- cum-retirement gratuity. In the present case the plaintiff having not opted for pension scheme, the requirement from refunding the advance taken from CPF within six months is not attracted. More so, in the present case as has been stated by the appellant in the written statement in the suit even after retirement an amount of Rs.4999/- was due from the advance taken by the respondents from his CPF amount.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 94 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Dkshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors vs Bachan Singh on 30 July, 2009

It is to be stated that the said OM dated 12.10.2000 in which the option has 12 OA 1239/2019 to be exercised within a period of six months, i.e., on or before 11.04.2000, the applicant has raised his objection in the year 2017. Therefore, the applicant cannot have a claim after over a period of 17 years of delay. It is also to be noted that in the matter of policy decision wherein financial implications are involved, it is for the employee concerned to raise his right over the said claim in time. The applicant has relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors Vs. Bachan Singh dated 30.07.2009 wherein the facts are not similar and the ratio is also not same. In the said case, the circular stating that after regularization of the employee, the service rendered by him on work-charged basis would not be counted for the pensionary purposes has not been made aware to the employee. Therefore after retirement he has made the correspondence and since there is no response filed a writ petition and knocked the doors of the Hon'ble High court for justice. Considering all the aspect and since the department has failed to prove that they have given knowledge about the said circular to the employee, an opportunity has been granted to opt for the said option accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 238 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Raj.Rajya Vidyut V Nigam Ltd vs Dwarka Prasad Koolwal & Ors on 7 August, 2014

It is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 13.11.2013 passed in CA 7148/2008 in the matter of Calcutta Port Trust & Ors 14 OA 1239/2019 Vs. Anadi Kumar Das & Anr that since the employee has not pleaded that he was not aware about the said OM itself against which he is claiming the benefit and that being the position it is not possible to accept the plea of the employee that he had not been served with the OM. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 7483/2014 in the matter of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal & Ors vide its order dated 07.08.2014 has held thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 60 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Pepsu Road Tpt Corpn, Patiala vs Amandeep Singh & Ors on 3 January, 2017

The entitlement to pension was available to the respondents but they chose not to avail the entitlement for reasons personal to them. Having taken a decision in this regard the respondents cannot now raise an argument of pension not being a bounty and therefore requiring the RSEB to give them another option to switch over to the Pension and GPF Regulations It is also to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by their order dated 03.01.2017 in CA No.3842/2011 in the matter of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors has held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 20 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 19 March, 2007

Hence an opportunity was ordered to be extended to him, relaxing the time limits. The case of the applicant, is therefore, distinct from that of Shri A.M.Baskaran as the OM dated 12/10/2000, was circulated among all the employees in the establishment of 2nd respondent's wherein the applicant worked and in pursuance to the said OM, 85 employees of IGCAR had opted for conversion from CPF to Pension Scheme. The respondents have also contended that the submission made by the applicant as well as one of the grounds which is raised by the applicant that the OM dated 12.10.2000 was not brought to the notice of the employees is not acceptable because the same has been displayed on notice board in the office of the applicant thereby 85 employees from the same office where the applicant was working have exercised their option pursuant to the said OM. The applicant has chosen not to exercise his option as he has already opted for CPF which is beneficial to him. To support the said contention the respondents have placed their reliance upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors in Appeal (Civil) No.7351 of 2000 that "It is settled Principle of Law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. Thus the maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest de injuria sua propia squarely applies to the present case. The respondents have also contended that as the applicant is harping upon the other so-called similar persons, namely Shri Y.B.S.R.Prasad, N.S.Banerjee and A.M.Kakre, those employees were all scientific officers who were ruled by different instructions. Scientific officers were allowed to exercise their option once any time before retirement. Therefore the applicant is not similarly situated with those 8 OA 1239/2019 officers/employees. In support of their contentions, the respondents have relied upon the following judgments:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 185 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Calcutta Port Trust & Ors vs Anadi Kumar Das (Capt) & Anr on 13 November, 2013

It is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 13.11.2013 passed in CA 7148/2008 in the matter of Calcutta Port Trust & Ors 14 OA 1239/2019 Vs. Anadi Kumar Das & Anr that since the employee has not pleaded that he was not aware about the said OM itself against which he is claiming the benefit and that being the position it is not possible to accept the plea of the employee that he had not been served with the OM. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 7483/2014 in the matter of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal & Ors vide its order dated 07.08.2014 has held thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 18 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1