Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court emphasised that the respondents did not object to the petitioner’s continuation of service for twenty-three years. Therefore, depriving the petitioner of pensionary benefits on the ground that a formal order of de-reservation was not passed, even though the ingredients were satisfied, would be unjust.
The Court stated that it is a settled law that after an employee’s retirement, the master and servant relationship ceases to operate. If any action is required to be taken after the retirement of an ex-employee, then same can always be taken when there is an express authority of law and provision of law.
The Court stated that the respondent took filmsy stand which was not acceptable and this was another glaring example of delay and laches on the respondents’ part for not extending the retirement benefits.
The Bombay High Court opined that a Public University is not expected to needlessly withhold the pensionary benefit of its retired employees.
The petitioner was retired from service by superannuation and hence, the employer – employee relationship between the petitioner and the University had come to an end and hence, the University holds no Authority to re-fix the salary and the consequential benefits of the petitioner.
Supreme Court observed that allowing the instant appeal would tantamount regularizing the appellants' services as work charged from the initial appointment.
Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): The Division Bench of Justice Devi Prasad Singh (Chairperson) and Air Marshal BBP Sinha, Member (A) heard the
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Sanjay Dhar, J., while allowing the present petition, clarified that a person who has been declared missing
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Anil Kshetarpal, J., expressed concern over lethargic attitude of the State towards granting pensionary benefits to the
Gauhati High Court: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua J., while reiterating the principle laid down by Supreme Court, with respect to calculation and
Jharkhand High Court: Deepak Roshan J., upheld the impugned judgment and dismissed the petition stating that the petitioner failed to show any
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. heard a civil writ petition stating that financial difficulty cannot be a ground to
Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J. examined the scope of jurisdiction to be exercised by the Probate Court, and allowed an appeal
Patna High Court: The Three-Judge Bench of Ashwani Kumar Singh, Birendra Kumar and Anil Kumar Upadhyay, JJ. dismissed a letters patent appeal
Jharkhand High Court: The Bench of Aniruddha Bose, C.J. and B.B. Mangalmurti, J. dismissed a petition claiming arrears of pension, post retrial
Gujarat High Court: A petition filed by the aggrieved under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution, for denial of pensionary
Calcutta High Court: The writ petition was preferred by a primary school teacher, aggrieved that an amount of Rs. 68, 556 was
Calcutta High Court: In the present case, where the petitioner was aggrieved due to the impugned Pension Payment Order, 1999 by which
Madras High Court: Dismissing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the District judge denying pensionary