Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.45 seconds)
Mansukhlal Mohandas Kubavat vs D/O Post on 28 February, 2022 cites

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Registrar, Central Administrative ... on 7 August, 2001

Though the fact that the service of GDS was not pensionable was one of the factors considered by this Court in the case of Union of India &Ors. Vs Registrar &Anr. (supra), that was not the main reason as to why the plea of the GDS was turned down by this Court. We have reproduced above the relevant passages from the said judgment containing the reasoning for allowing the appeal. For adjudication of this set of appeals, thus the proceeding in which the Rule making service of GDS non-pensionable has been struck down is not of much relevance. The controversy which we are dealing with in this judgment is whether the period of service rendered by a regular staff of the postal department while he was serving as GDS would be computed for the purpose of determining his qualifying service to entitle him to get pension.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 51 - R J Babu - Full Document

Uoi vs Gandiba Behera on 8 November, 2019

12. In the present case, the applicant herein was initially engaged as GDS on 21.01.1980, subsequently, he was absorbed /regular appointed in Group - „D‟ post on 08.04.2003. Thereafter, the applicant superannuated as regular Group - „D‟ employee on 28.02.2011 by rendering 7 years, 10 months & 10 days regular qualifying service tenure. It is evident that no pensionary benefit was granted to the applicant. The applicant missed the regular qualifying service period by marginal shortfall. Therefore, in our considered 16 (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA No.470/2017) view, as per the law laid down by Hon‟ble Apex court in the case of UOI Vs Gandiba Behera (supra), if the concerned ministry/ postal department consider to relax the minimum qualifying service rule in terms of Rule 88 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and decide to extend benefit of pension to such retired regular Group - „D‟ GDS/ Postman/MTS, the said decision /benefit be also made applicable in the case of applicant herein who is stated to have retired as regular Group - „D‟employee but missed the qualifying service period by marginal shortfall in his regular service tenure. We direct the respondents accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 86 - A Bose - Full Document

Superintendent Of Post Offices Etc. Etc vs P.K. Rajamma Etc. Etc on 22 April, 1977

The decisions in the cases of P.K. Rajamma(supra) and Chet Ram (supra) are for the proposition that the respondents held civil posts as GDS and were government servants. But again ratio of these authorities cannot be applied to combine the services rendered by GDSs in posts guided by an altogether different service 12 (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA No.470/2017) rule with their services in regular employment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 139 - A C Gupta - Full Document

Union Of India vs Dattappa on 7 January, 2015

An unreported judgment of Karnataka High Court delivered on 17th June, 2011 in the case of W.P. No. 81699/2011 Union of India and Others Vs. Dattappa has also been cited on behalf of the respondents. This judgment went in favour of counting the period of service as extra-departmental Agent for qualifying service in relation to pension and the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court proceeded on the basis that for all intents and purpose, the employment was continuous in nature and it was not as if it was from one service to another.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1   2 Next