Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.51 seconds)Dr. Ravindra Narayan Mishra vs Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa College And ... on 19 May, 2023
Mr.
Sinha is also right in his submission that the case of the Petitioner is
squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Dr. Ravindra Narayan
Mishra (supra), although this Court is conscious of the fact that appeals are
pending before the Division Bench but the Court has categorically declined
to stay the operation of the judgment and permitted the Respondents to seek
implementation of the judgment.
State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 14 August, 2013
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in State of
Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, (2013) 12 SCC 210 : (2013) 4
LLN 56 (SC) : AIR 2013 SC 3383, held that the right to receive Pension,
Gratuity or Leave Encashment can be treated as right to property in terms
of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. If a person eligible to get
Pensionary benefit on retirement, if denied by giving narrow
interpretation of Rules, it will definitely be in violation of Article 300-A of
the Constitution of India.
Harbans Lal And Another vs State Of Haryana on 15 October, 1992
Another aspect which is to be noticed is that another Division Bench of
this Court in Harbans Lal v. The State of Haryana, 2012 (3) SCT 362, was
also noticed in the earlier decision of the Tribunal which had upheld the
principle that once the services of work-charge employees were
regularized then the earlier service was also liable to be considered for
the purpose of pension and the entire service was to be counted back from
the said date of his initial appointment. It is not disputed that the SLP No.
23578 of 2012 filed by the State of Punjab was dismissed on 30.07.2012
and Review Petition No. 2038/2013 was also dismissed on 04.11.2015.
The relevant portion reads as under:
Union Of India & Anr. vs Dalip Kumar on 26 September, 2014
In Dalip Kumar (supra), a Division
Bench of this Court relying on Rule 13 clearly held that temporary service
which is uninterrupted and followed by regularisation would count
towards qualifying service and the said Rule is not abrogated by NPS. The
judgment would, therefore, squarely apply to this case on account of a pari
materia provision Clause 1(h), which reads as follows:-
Union Of India And Others vs Dr Neelam Aggarwal And Others on 22 October, 2018
22. Recently, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Union
of India & another v. Dr. Sameer Aggarwal & another, decided on
18.04.2022 in CWP No. 7694/2022, relied on the earlier judgment in Dr.
Neelam Aggarwal (supra) and granted the same benefit as was granted to
the Respondents in Dr. Neelam Aggarwal (supra) and relevant paras of the
judgment are as follows:
Union Of India And Anr vs Sameer Aggarwal And Anr on 18 April, 2022
22. Recently, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Union
of India & another v. Dr. Sameer Aggarwal & another, decided on
18.04.2022 in CWP No. 7694/2022, relied on the earlier judgment in Dr.
Neelam Aggarwal (supra) and granted the same benefit as was granted to
the Respondents in Dr. Neelam Aggarwal (supra) and relevant paras of the
judgment are as follows:
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Sheela Devi on 7 August, 2023
26. Mr. Sinha has additionally relied on a recent judgment of the Supreme
Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Sheela Devi, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1272, where the Supreme Court was examining the
judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court granting relief to the writ
petitioners, whose claims were that as they were initially appointed prior to
01.01.2004 albeit on contract basis, they were entitled to reckon the period
of contractual service for pension de hors the fact their regularisation was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 12597/2019 Page 24 of 25
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:16.08.2024
20:19:43
post 01.01.2004. The State contested the judgment of the High Court on the
ground that the regular appointments of the writ petitioners were post
01.01.2004 and thus they were mandatorily covered under the NPS and their
contractual service could not be counted for pension. Repelling the
contention of the State, the Supreme Court agreed with the writ petitioners
and observed that the past services of the contractual employees will be
taken into account for pension and they will be covered under the OPS.
Union Of India vs Neelam Aggarwal on 10 January, 2020
"It was also noticed by the Tribunal that the said judgment had been
upheld by the Co-ordinate Bench in Union of India v. Dr. Neelam
Aggarwal, 2019 (4) SCT 842 on 22.10.2018. Resultantly, the Senior
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 12597/2019 Page 20 of 25
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:16.08.2024
20:19:43
Standing Counsel for Union of India could not dispute the fact that the
application was allowed in the same terms and the applicant-respondent
No. 1 herein was granted the benefit of GPF-cum-Old Pension Scheme
(OPS). It is pertinent to mention that the Tribunal did not grant any benefit
for the past service rendered by him with Punjab Government but for the
arrears towards his claim for pension. The said respondent has also not
filed any cross-petition against that claim.
1