Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.21 seconds)
Shri Mahender Kumar vs Union Of India on 27 August, 2011 cites

Raj Kumar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 4 January, 2006

The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. It is contended by the defendant that since the plaintiff had retired from service in the year 1998 whereas the present suit has been filed in the year 2007, therefore the present suit is barred by law. It is admitted that the matter regarding the grant of pension of the BSF officials was sub­judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was only on 04.01.2006 the controversy was put at rest by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. UOI and others (AIR 2006 SC 938) decided on 04.01.2006.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 24 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document

Raj Kumar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 5 November, 2003

Sh. Mahender Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. 18/21 Suit No. 394/2007 From the aforesaid observations, it can be safely inferred that plaintiff never reported for service whereas as is already been discussed it was incumbent rather mandatory for him in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. UOI and others to have reported for service failing which he is liable to get his pension forfeited.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 8 - M Mudgal - Full Document

Shri Mahender Kumar vs Union Of India on 8 December, 2010

Sh. Mahender Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. 18/21 Suit No. 394/2007 From the aforesaid observations, it can be safely inferred that plaintiff never reported for service whereas as is already been discussed it was incumbent rather mandatory for him in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. UOI and others to have reported for service failing which he is liable to get his pension forfeited.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors on 12 January, 2010

Feeling aggrieved, a number of persons approached Hon'ble Supreme Court again and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a common judgment titled Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. UOI and others (AIR Sh. Mahender Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. 9/21 Suit No. 394/2007 2006 SC 938) disposed of the matter reiterating the view expressed by it in the case of UOI Vs. Rakesh Kumar to the extent that pension was not admissible on resignation unless the individual had 20 years of qualifying service. However, the court divided different categories of persons on the basis of length of period. Viz (a) Personnel who were getting pension before December, 1995 were not touched. (b) Further, personnel who retired subsequent to 1996 and had not been sanctioned pension but were directed for reporting for induction in service shall have to forfeit their pension if they have not reported for service pursuant to the circular dated 17.10.1998. (c) It was further made clear that in case they have reported for service then there is no question for any relief in their case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 179 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1