Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)

Union Of India & Anr vs Tarsem Singh on 13 August, 2008

Distinguishing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh case (supra), the Division Bench held that the case of the employees would be barred under the law of limitation as they had received their full dues as per the CPF scheme upon their retirement and if they had any grievance they could have filed legal proceedings within three years of having received their dues. Accordingly, claim of the employees was rejected on the ground of limitation as well as delay and laches. The dicta of the said judgement is squarely applicable in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 2254 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Madhu Bhushan Anand on 10 August, 2010

Reliance may also be placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Madhu Bhushan Anand and other connected petitions, 172 (2010) DLT 668 wherein the Court was seized of the similar issue in the context of employees of DTC who wanted to shift from CPF scheme to the GPF cum pension scheme. In the said case also, the employees made representations for shifting from CPF to GPF cum pension scheme much after they had taken voluntary retirement (VRS) and upon being unsuccessful approached the CAT.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 28 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan And Anr. vs Sh. V. D. Pandey on 27 September, 2019

12. As regards the reliance placed by the counsel for the respondents on the judgment of this Court in V.D. Pandey case (supra), the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said case the representation was made by the employees before their retirement, whereas in the present case the representation was made long after their retirement.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - G S Sistani - Full Document
1