Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Dr. Ram Sharan Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 September, 2021 cites

Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Th. Dgc (Crl.) & Anr on 27 February, 2008

5. It is further urged that services of the petitioner rendered on ad-hoc basis is covered by expression 'qualifying service' as defined under Act, 2021. Reliance has been placed on several judgments of this Court, whereby, petitions filed by similarly situated Medical Officers came to be allowed and their ad-hoc service was directed to be counted towards pensionary benefit. Reliance has been placed on the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others3. The order is extracted:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 119 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Virendra Kumar Srivastava vs U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kal. Nigam And ... on 23 November, 2004

A similar question had come up for consideration before the Court in Writ Petition No. 61974 of 2011 (Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., and another) decided on 1.3.2012 and it was held that the period of adhoc services rendered by the Government servant is to be counted for the purposes of payment of pension.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 469 - D M Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1