Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.64 seconds)THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
Parshuram Vithoba Bhandare vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 18 August, 2001
In the case of Parshuram Vithoba Bhandare vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr.1 wherein an identical question arose, as the
petitioner therein worked as a daily wager since 1964 and came to
be appointed permanently on a sanctioned post in the year 1983, a
Division Bench of this Court after adverting to the provisions of
Rule 30 and 57 (extracted above), held that the petitioner therein
would be entitled to pension after reckoning the services rendered
as a daily wager as qualifying service for pension. The Division
Bench observed, inter alia, as under:-
Atharva Shelters Pvt Ltd And 2 Ors vs Union Bank Of India And 3 Ors on 28 October, 2015
23. A learned single Judge of this Court considered the question
in controversy in a greater detail in the case of Mahatma Phule
Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri vs. Ganpat Kisan Karle, Ahmednagar 3
and after an analysis of the provisions of the Pension Rules, 1982
and the previous pronouncements, enunciated in clear and explicit
terms that if a daily wager is given work on daily basis without
there being a post available and upon creation of said post is
granted regularization and permanency from the first day, his past
service tenure will have to be reckoned for the purpose of
calculating his qualifying service.
Subhash Narayan Mhaske And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 18 December, 2017
22. The non-applicability of Rule 57 where there was no material
to show that the Government servant was paid out of contingency
fund was again highlighted by the another Division Bench in the
case of Jayshree w/o. Narayan Mhaske vs. State of Maharashtra
and Others2.
1