SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 797

M. M. PUNCHHI, J. S. VERMA, A. S. ANAND, S. C. AGRAWAL, S. P. BHARUCHA
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
C. L. Agrawal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S.P. Bharucha, J.-These civil appeals arise upon identical facts and may be disposed of by a common judgment. The principal judgment under appeal is that of a Full Bench of the High Court at Allahabad, in Civil Appeal No. 10568 of 1996. The Full Bench judgment was followed by a Division Bench of the High Court and that order is impugned in Civil Appeal No. 10596 of 1996.

2. The facts that we state relate to Civil Appeal No. 10568 of 1996. The first respondent was appointed a Lower Division Assistant in the High Court at Allahabad on 1st June, 1957. He was given, on the orders of the Chief Justice in office at the relevant time, one premature (or advance) increment in the year 1989, two premature increments in the year 1990 and one premature increment in the year 1991. He retired from service on 31st July, 1994. For the purposes of calculating his pensionary benefits, the appellants did not take into account these premature increments. They acted upon the basis of a letter dated 27th June, 1992, which had been addressed by the Joint Secretary of the appellant State to the Registrar of the High Court in respect of a premature increment that had been granted to one Nazim Hussai


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top