Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI, B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
S. P. Bhattacharya – Respondent
JUDGMENT
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. - Heard Sri M. Srinivas, learned standing counsel for the Central Government and Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners-Union of India and its authority challenging the order dtd. 28/12/2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the CAT") in Original Application No.594 of 2010, by which the O.A of the 1st respondent herein S.P. Bhattacharya was allowed to the extent indicated in the order to which reference will be made shortly.
3. The 1st respondent was initially appointed as T.C. Fitter on 16/9/1969 in Railway Electrification Project. He was granted temporary status w.e.f 1/1/1984 as Cable Jointer in RE organization. His pay was revised on proforma basis vide proceedings dtd. 1/11/2005 (A-VI). The applicant was absorbed to the post of Rest House Watchman on 4/9/2002 and retired from service on 30/11/2005. On his retirement he was given service certificate stating that he has completed 21 years and 11 months i.e., taken as 22 years service. The applicant came to know that the period from 1/3/1997 to 3/9/2002 ha
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of absence treated as leave without pay cannot be counted as qualifying service for pension in view of Rule 36 of the Railway Servi....
Pensionary benefits can be denied for periods of unauthorized absence under applicable rules, and prior decisions concerning the same parties bar relitigation under res judicata principles.
The Tribunal ruled only the service from regularization post-2006 is valid for calculating pension and benefits due to breaks in service prior to that.
A casual worker's service can only be partially recognized (50%) for pension benefits prior to regularization, reaffirming past legal principles from related cases and rulings on similar issues.
Casual labourers granted temporary status and regularized entitled to 50% casual service and 50% temporary service counted as qualifying for pension, per later Supreme Court judgment superseding prio....
When the petitioner was not eligible to submit a notice to retire under Rule 48-A, rejection was beyond the period of three months and the petitioner is deemed to have retired is unsustainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation of the statutory provision under sub-rule (6) of Rule 18 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, and the court's direction for ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
