Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)Bibhuti Bhusan Jena vs Union Of India And Others ....... .. ... on 15 September, 2010
18. The Central Administrative Tribunal has partially allowed the
Original Application filed by the respondent following the mandate of the
Judgment of the Supreme Court in BIBHUTI BHUSHAN
CHOUDHARY's case (supra) and has held that the respondent's period of
suspension be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of computation
of pension and other pensionary benefits. In view of the above discussion,
we see no infirmity or perversity in the findings of the Central
Administrative Tribunal so as to interfere in exercise of the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are therefore,
::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:12:51 :::
RNG 15 wp673.05
of the considered view that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the
period of suspension to be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for
pensionary benefits.
R.P. Kapur vs Union Of India And Anr on 19 November, 1963
17. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the Judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of R.P.KAPUR vs UNION OF INDIA
(1999) 8 Supreme Court cases 110 wherein the Supreme Court has taken
into consideration Rule 37 and Rule 50. This was a case where a railway
employee was placed under suspension on 21.1.1982 and was compulsorily
retired by way of penalty with effect from 25.11.1982. In the order of
penalty, it was specifically stated as follows
" The President has therefore decided to impose on R.P.Kapur a
penalty of compulsory retirement from service with condition that
while payment during the entire period of suspension from 21.1.1982
to the date of service of this order will be restricted to the subsistence
allowance drawn. This period may be allowed to be count as
qualifying service for pension but for no other purpose. "
1