Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.30 seconds)
Roshan Lal Saini vs Education Deptt., Ut Chandigarh on 5 December, 2018 cites

R.K. Aggarwal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 December, 2012

7. Even the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of R.K. Aggarwal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others decided on 21.12.2012, while entirely agreeing with the view taken by the Full Bench of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Central Government SAG (S-29) Pensioners' Association and another Vs. Union of India and another (O.A. NO. 655 of 2010), considered the matter in detail and settled the issue of grant of pension to pre-01.01.2006 in a very clear and unambiguous order. The operative part of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 114 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Central Government Sag (S-29) ... vs Union Of India Through The on 1 November, 2011

The Court has clearly laid down in above judgments that pension is to be fixed as 50% of the sum of the minimum of pay in the pay band + G.P. corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. The crucial phrases to be noted are 50% of sum of "minimum of pay in the pay band and grade pay" i.e. 50% of (Rs.37,400+Rs.9000) and corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale i.e. Rs.12000 - Rs.18300 being the pay scale from which the applicants had retired, and not the pre-revised pay, as is being argued by the applicants. The ratio of law laid down in the indicated judgments is mutatis mutandis applicable to the present controversy, and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Coram: Hon Ble Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu vs Union Of India Through The Secretary To ... on 4 January, 2016

3. The respondents in their written statement submitted that after implementation of 5th Punjab Pay Scale, the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Finance vide notification dated 17.08.2009 revised the pension of pre 01.01.2006 pensioners, family pensioners and it was to be fixed under Rule 4.1 and 4.2 of the above notification (Annexure R-3). As per Rule 4.2 the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus OA No. 060/00242/2018 3 the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. This will be reduced pro-rata if qualifying service of the person falls short of 33 years (later on vide letter dated 15.12.2011 Punjab Govt. reduced the qualifying service to 25 years for full pension w.e.f. 01.12.2011). However, vide decision dated 14.02.2013 in O.A. NO. 391/CH/2012 titled Rajwant Kaur Sidhu Vs. Union of India & Others, the cut-off date of 01.02.2011 for linkage of full pension with qualifying service of 25 years was quashed and it was ordered that the pensioners are entitled to the fixation of pension in terms of provision of Rule 4.2 quoted in communication dated 17.08.2009. It is submitted that according to the said notification pension of the Lecturer (Selection Grade with 3 or more years of service) working in pre-revised pay scale of Rs.12000-18300, has been revised as Rs.23200 which is minimum 50% of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay of the pay band of Rs.37400-67000 + Grade Pay Rs.9000, and the pension of the applicants has been accordingly fixed @ Rs.23200/-. Therefore, the claim of the applicants deserves to be dismissed.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1