Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)
Hira Ram Rajak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 March, 2025 cites

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

"The question is having worked for entire year to the satisfaction of the employer whether an incumbent can be denied the benefit merely because he stood retired on a day early to the date of increment. An issue of similar nature came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in S. Banerjee vs. Union of India : AIR 1990 SC 285 wherein the petitioner who having retired on January 1st 1986 claimed the benefit under paragraph 17.3 of Fourth Central Pay Commission Report Part II, held that-
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 217 - M M Dutt - Full Document

The Director (Admn. And Hr) Kptcl vs C.P. Mundinamani on 11 April, 2023

11. The entire issue thereafter traveled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others" reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401. In the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in very categorical terms held that once the petitioner has earned an increment on completing one year of service, he cannot be denied the benefit of increment, which in other words also means that if on the date of retirement, which in this writ petition being 30th of June, if he has earned an increment of having worked for 12 months (one year) preceding to the date of retirement, he, under no circumstances can be denied the benefit of increment while quantifying the post retiral benefits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 557 - M R Shah - Full Document

The Additional Chief Secretary To ... vs M. Balasubramanian on 22 August, 2023

7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of 8 increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The 15 petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1