Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
Om Prakash Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 January, 2022 cites

S. Banerjee vs Union Of India And Ors on 24 October, 1989

If we peruse the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Banerjee (supra), the facts were that the petitioner was allowed to retire voluntarily from service with effect from the forenoon of 1st January, 1986. He was not given the benefit of revision of salary which was brought into effect from 01.01.1986. The Government had argued before the Supreme Court that in view of the proviso of Rule 5(2) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary for the (Downloaded on 12/01/2022 at 08:55:03 PM) (30 of 32) [CW-85/2020] day on which he actually retired and therefore, his claim for granting the benefit of revision of pay scales would not be justified. The Supreme Court repelled this contention on the ground that the employee retired with effect from the forenoon of 01.01.1986 and not with effect from 31st December, 1985 and therefore the revision of pay scales would be applicable to him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 217 - M M Dutt - Full Document

Union Of India & vs A K Chaudhary S/O Kumar on 19 July, 2013

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in case of Union of India vs. A. Chaudhari reported in 2009 SCC Online Del. 4338 considered a case where an employee retired on superannuation on 31.3.1995. Fifth Pay Commission recommendations were made effective from 1.4.1995 in which death-cum-retiral gratuity benefits were increased. The employee claimed such higher benefits. The court (Downloaded on 12/01/2022 at 08:55:03 PM) (31 of 32) [CW-85/2020] relying on a Division Bench judgement of Karnataka High Court held that the employee cannot contend that he had retired with effect from 01.04.1995 and therefore higher benefits cannot be granted.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 69 - V M Sahai - Full Document
1