Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)
B Rama Chandra Murthy vs M/O Finance on 10 December, 2018 cites

S. Banerjee vs Union Of India And Ors on 24 October, 1989

In S. Banerjee vs Union of India, whereupon reliance has been placed, the fact situation obtaining was completely different. In that case, the appellant filed an application for voluntary retirement which was accepted from the forenoon of 1.1.1986. In that view of the matter, he was found to be entitled to the benefit of para 17.3 of the recommendations of the Pay Commission."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 217 - M M Dutt - Full Document

Achhaibar Maurya vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 December, 2007

Keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs K.J. George and Achhaibar Maurya vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others, the Tribunal dismissed the OAs 941 and 942 of 2011. I. The contest did not end here. Another batch of OAs 213/2014, 1096/2013 & OA Nos. 1518, 1529, 1530, 1531 of 2012 again fell for consideration by this Tribunal seeking relief of extending the benefit of enhanced DA on the date succeeding the date of retirement as was allowed by this Tribunal in OAs 552 & 554 of 2003. The judgment rendered in OA 552 of 2003 filed by B.Chandrashekar Rao and Others was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 26506 of 2012. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the order of this Tribunal in granting enhanced DA sought keep ing in view the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P No 22042 of 2003 and dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter the respondents carried the matter in appeal and filed SLP (C) No. 16237 of 2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the judgment in W.P no 26506 of 2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The SLP no 16237 of 2013 arising out of W.P no 26506/2012 was dismissed by the 13 OA 1109/2016, 26/2017 & 1116/2016 Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.10.2014 by declining to interfere with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court keeping the question of law open.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 43 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India vs George K.P on 31 October, 2014

Keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs K.J. George and Achhaibar Maurya vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others, the Tribunal dismissed the OAs 941 and 942 of 2011. I. The contest did not end here. Another batch of OAs 213/2014, 1096/2013 & OA Nos. 1518, 1529, 1530, 1531 of 2012 again fell for consideration by this Tribunal seeking relief of extending the benefit of enhanced DA on the date succeeding the date of retirement as was allowed by this Tribunal in OAs 552 & 554 of 2003. The judgment rendered in OA 552 of 2003 filed by B.Chandrashekar Rao and Others was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 26506 of 2012. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the order of this Tribunal in granting enhanced DA sought keep ing in view the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P No 22042 of 2003 and dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter the respondents carried the matter in appeal and filed SLP (C) No. 16237 of 2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the judgment in W.P no 26506 of 2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The SLP no 16237 of 2013 arising out of W.P no 26506/2012 was dismissed by the 13 OA 1109/2016, 26/2017 & 1116/2016 Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.10.2014 by declining to interfere with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court keeping the question of law open.
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - P R Menon - Full Document

Bhanu Bannerji vs Union Of India Through Its General ... on 2 December, 2015

The answer lies in understanding as to how a day is defined in law. As per common law principles, a day commences with one mid night and ends 7 OA 1109/2016, 26/2017 & 1116/2016 with the next midnight and denotes a period of 24 hours. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Bannerji vs Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 285 was considering a case where, an officer of the Supreme Court sought voluntary retirement from the forenoon of 01-01-1986 and that was the day when higher DA was made available to the employees of the Supreme Court. Rules provided that in the case of voluntary retirement, the date of retirement would be considered as a non working day. The Court has held that the rule should be construed to mean that person retiring voluntarily under Rule 56 J to 56 M were disentitled to receive the pay on the date of retirement but the fact that they become entitled to any concession available as on that day and accordingly held that the retired person was entitled to DA for the purpose of working out the terminal benefits. Rule 5 (2) of the Pension Rules which deals with regulation of claims to pension or family pension also states that the day on which a Government servant retires or is retired or is discharged or is allowed to resign from service, as the case may be, shall be treated as his last working day. In other words the employee would become a pensioner only the next day since the last day of retirement is a working day enjoining upon the employee to discharge the duties assigned to the post he holds.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1