A.M.AHMADI, N.P.SINGH
Kanhaiyalal Parasai – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
ORDER
1. The writ petitioner who was serving as Special Officer (Hindi) in the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance of the Government of India gave notice of his intention to seek voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, w.e.f. 5-10-1979 by his letter dated 6-9-1979. He requested that the requirement of three months notice may be waived and he may be allowed cash equivalent of the entire earned leave and half pay leave under Rule 39(6) of the Central Civil Service Leave Rules, 1972. This was followed by a letter dated 11-9-1979 wherein he emphasised that leave due and pension are two distinct things, they are in the nature of property and, therefore, while granting the cash equivalent of leave of both kinds no deduction can be made on account of the latter nor can half pay leave be made co-terminus with superannuation. On 3-10-1979 the petitioner was informed that while no deduction would be made from the earned leave component on account of pension 2nd pensionary equivalent, the half pay leave would be subject to such deductions. On receipt of this communication, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 6-10-1979, the petitioner resorted to ca
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.