Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.82 seconds)The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari on 8 February, 2021
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30'
52
Annexure A-22: True copy of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. Smt. Dinavahi Lakshmi
Kameswari CA 399/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) 12553/2020).
Annexure A-23: True copy of the final order dated 31.5.2018 in OA
108/2017 on the file of this Tribunal.
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
However, on an evaluation of
the factual and legal issues involved, the Full Bench rejected the
contention of the applicants based on D.S. Nakara's case (supra) that the
pre-2006 retirees should be extended the same pensionary benefits as that
of the post-2006 retirees, could not be accepted.
Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs Signature Not Verified Digitally ... on 5 September, 2022
18. Annexure A4 order was challenged before the High Court of Delhi
in WP(C) No. 1535 of 2012 and connected cases. When the matter came
up for final hearing Annexure A7 order was placed before the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi. After referring to the above OM in detail as well as
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30'
23
the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal, it was held that the Division
Bench was in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.K. Aggarwal & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors. [WP(C) No. 19641/2009] wherein the Punjab
and Haryana High Court held as follows:
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014
28. Thereafter, on 30.10.2020, a sum of Rs.1,13,964/- was credited to
the Bank Account of the applicant. Interestingly, the breakup of the
amount thus credited was not furnished to the applicant. According to the
applicant, out of the above amounts, Rs.26,267/- ought to have been the
monthly pension for October 2020. Pointing out the anomaly, Annexure
A7 representation was submitted. When she was paid the pension for
November 2020, there was a reduction of Rs.2,934/-. This was pointed
out by submitting Annexure A-7 and claiming the benefit of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court's judgement in State of Punjab v. Rafiq and Masih (AIR
2015 SC 696). Annexure A8 letter was issued by the 6th respondent
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30'
32
clarifying that the revision of pension from 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2015 were
based on PCDA Circular was only notional meant for fixation purpose
only. It was stated that due to upward revision of monthly pension, on
getting ACP an amount of Rs. 1,84,516/- was due to her as arrears, and
Rs. 93,885/- was deducted towards downward revision of pension from
Rs. 22,450/- to Rs. 20,933/- for the period from 1.1.2016 to 30.9.2020.
Claiming that the Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- was not reckoned while
revising the pension, she submitted further representations. Thereafter,
she was served with Annexure A9 notice.
Gangubai Bhagwan Salawade, Ms. Rupali ... vs Smt. Chimanabai Suryabhan Salawade, ... on 29 June, 2004
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms. V. Rama Mathew, Member (A)
1