Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.31 seconds)Union Of India vs M.V. Mohanan Nair on 5 March, 2020
8. The 2nd issue arising for consideration as
noticed earlier is with reference to the provisions of Clause
No.23 of Ext.P10 referred to above. As already noticed,
Ext.P10 through clause Nos.3 and 4 had extended various
additional increments to the employees of the respondent
Corporation. However, the provisions of clause Nos.3 and
4 have to be read along with Ext.R1(h), as per which, the
scheme was only provided with prospective operation from
01.09.2008. It is the very same fixation of the cut off date
W.P.(C)No.13317 of 2018 &
connected cases 50 2025:KER:29507
that is being implemented through clause No.23 of
Ext.P10. Clause No.23 makes it clear that the service put
in prior to 01.09.2008 would not be admissible for the
purpose of extending the benefits under the scheme.
Radha Sundar Dutta vs Mohd. Jahadur Rahim And Others on 18 September, 1958
10. In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion
that there cannot be any challenge as against the
provisions of Clause No.23. Though, the learned counsel
Sri.Surendran placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Radha Sundar Dutta v. Mohd. Jahadur Rahim
and Others [(1958) SCR 1309], to contend the clause
No.23 is not in tune with the provisions of clause Nos.3 and
4 and hence the same has to be declared as conflictive in
W.P.(C)No.13317 of 2018 &
connected cases 51 2025:KER:29507
nature and has to be given a go bye, I am unable to accept
the afore submission for the reasons already recorded.
1