Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)
Vijay Kumar vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. &Ors. on 10 July, 2013 cites

Retd. Major A.S. Dahiya E.C. No. 59676 vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 December, 2003

Major A.S. Dahiya (supra) which I have relied upon in the case of Smt. Pawan Vohra (supra), petitioner will be entitled to add service of 5 years in terms of Rule 48-B of the CCS (Pension) Rules. There is no discussion in any of the judgments relied upon on behalf of respondent no.1/BSES specifically pertaining to Rule 48-B, and hence there is no reason why benefit of Rule 48-B cannot be given in the facts of the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - R C Jain - Full Document

Smt. Pawan Vohra vs The Chairman, Dvb Pension Trust And Anr. on 17 May, 2013

Major A.S. Dahiya (supra) which I have relied upon in the case of Smt. Pawan Vohra (supra), petitioner will be entitled to add service of 5 years in terms of Rule 48-B of the CCS (Pension) Rules. There is no discussion in any of the judgments relied upon on behalf of respondent no.1/BSES specifically pertaining to Rule 48-B, and hence there is no reason why benefit of Rule 48-B cannot be given in the facts of the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - V J Mehta - Full Document

C.Jacob vs Director Of Geology & ... on 3 October, 2008

6. Learned senior counsel for respondent no.1 places reliance on two judgments. First judgment is in the case of C.Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Anr. (2008) 10 SCC 115 and the second judgment is Union of India & Ors Vs. Madhu E.V and Anr. (2012) 5 SCC 474. I have perused both these judgments. None of these judgments directly deal with the provision of Rule 48-B of the CCS (Pension) Rules. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the WPC 957/2011 & conn. Page 9 of 12 respondent no.1 was that there is a difference between entitlement to pension and calculation of the amount of pension. What was argued was that if the petitioner is not entitled to pension, the issue of calculation does not arise. In my opinion, reliance which is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court as referred to above is misplaced because the issue of qualifying service is necessarily linked to Rule 48-B, and if Rule 48-B applies, and which is so stated by the Division Bench in the case of Retd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 493 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Madhu E.V. & Anr on 26 April, 2012

6. Learned senior counsel for respondent no.1 places reliance on two judgments. First judgment is in the case of C.Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Anr. (2008) 10 SCC 115 and the second judgment is Union of India & Ors Vs. Madhu E.V and Anr. (2012) 5 SCC 474. I have perused both these judgments. None of these judgments directly deal with the provision of Rule 48-B of the CCS (Pension) Rules. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the WPC 957/2011 & conn. Page 9 of 12 respondent no.1 was that there is a difference between entitlement to pension and calculation of the amount of pension. What was argued was that if the petitioner is not entitled to pension, the issue of calculation does not arise. In my opinion, reliance which is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court as referred to above is misplaced because the issue of qualifying service is necessarily linked to Rule 48-B, and if Rule 48-B applies, and which is so stated by the Division Bench in the case of Retd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 24 - R M Lodha - Full Document

North Delhi Power Ltd. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi [Along With Wp (C) ... on 2 July, 2007

7. I may also note that the issue with respect to whether it is the respondent no.1 or the Government of Delhi or the Trust which is liable is also otherwise decided by me in the case of Smt. Pawan Vohra (supra) and whereafter referring to the earlier judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of North Delhi Power Ltd. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi. 142 (2007) DLT 65 and that very Single Judge's subsequent judgment dated 20.4.2011, I have held that it is the DISCOMS, such as respondent no.1 in this case, which is liable to make payment of the terminal benefits and the liability towards terminal benefits cannot WPC 957/2011 & conn. Page 10 of 12 be avoided by the private DISCOMS such as respondent no.1.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 22 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1