Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)
A.Rajendran vs Tamil Nadu Khadi And Village Industries ... on 12 April, 2018 cites

Anil Kumar Mahajan vs Uoi,Secretary,Department Of ... on 2 July, 2013

22.It is informed at the Bar that in normal course the appellant would have superannuated from service on 31.07.2012. In that view of the matter, now there is no question of reinstatement of the appellant though he may be entiltled for consequential benefits including arrears of pay. Having regard to the facts and finding given above, we have no other option but to set aside the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant dated 15.10.2007 passed by the respondent; the order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA.No.2784 of 2008 and the impugned order dated 20.04.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Anil Kumar Mahajan V. Union of India and the case is remitted to the respondents with a direction to treat the appellant as continued in the service till the date of his superannuation. The appellant shall be paid full salary minus the subsistence http://www.judis.nic.in 17 allowance already received for the period from the date of initiation of departmental proceeding on the ground that he was suffering from mental illness till the date of compulsory retirement. The appellant shall also be provided with full salary from the date of compulsory retirement till the date of superannuation in view of the first and second provisos to Section 47 of the 1995 Act. If the appellant has already been superannuated, he will also be entitled to full retiral benefits counting the total period in service. The benefits shall be paid to the appellant within three months, else the respondents will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the amount was due, till the actual payment.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1