Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)
P.K.Mehra vs Chief Secretary on 16 December, 2014 cites

State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 14 August, 2013

5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. 7.2 In State of Jharkhand & ors v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & another, AIR 2013 SC 3383, the respondent in SLP (Civil) No.1427 of 2009 was working in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. He joined the said Department in the Government of Bihar on 2.11.1966. On 16.4.1996, two cases were registered against him under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging serious financial irregularities during the years 1990-91 and 1991-92 when he was posted as Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi. On promulgation of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, State of Jharkhand came into existence and the respondent became the employee of the appellant-State. Prosecutions in respect of the two criminal cases against the respondent were pending. On 30.1.2002, the appellant-State also ordered initiation of disciplinary action against him. While these proceedings were still pending, on attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent retired from the post of Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi, on 31.8.2002. The appellant-State sanctioned the release and payment of GPF on 25.5.2003. Thereafter, on 18.3.2004, the appellant sanctioned 90 per cent provisional pension to the respondent. Remaining 10 percent pension and salary of his suspension period (30.1.2002 to 30.8.2002) was withheld pending outcome of the criminal cases/departmental inquiry against him. He was also not paid leave encashment and gratuity. Feeling aggrieved with this action of the withholding of his 10 percent of the pension and non-release of other retirement dues, the respondent preferred the writ petition before the Honble High Court of Jharkhand. This writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by remitting the case back to the Department to decide the claim of the petitioner for payment of provisional pension, gratuity, etc., in terms of Resolution No.3014 dated 31.7.1980. The appellant-State, thereafter considered the representation of the respondent but rejected the same vide order dated 16.3.2006. The respondent challenged the rejection by filing another writ petition. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The respondent filed Intra Court Appeal which was allowed by the Division Bench vide the impugned order dated 31.10.2007.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 722 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Smt Rajeshwari Chauhan vs N.C.T. Of Delhi on 28 September, 2011

7.4 In Rajeshwari Chauhan v. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT Delhi & others, OA No.3322 of 2011, decided on 31.1.2012, the applicant retired from service on 30.4.2010. The leave encashment payable to him was withheld by the respondents because of registration of two FIRs by the Anti Corruption Branch against the applicant on 24.6.2008 and 2.2.2009. It was held by the Tribunal that judicial proceedings are not deemed to have been initiated against the applicant by mere filing of FIR and that withholding of leave encashment benefits which became due and payable to the applicant on retirement on 30.4.2010 does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 39 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next