Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
RAVI NATH TILHARI, K. MANMADHA RAO
Union of Indiad – Appellant
Versus
P. V. Subba Rao – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. - Heard Sri.T. Ashok Srivastava Reddy, learned Counsel representing Sri. N. Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the Petitioners and Sri. Mahanthi Regulagadda, learned Counsel representing Sri. A. Tata Rao, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1.
2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Union of India and its authorities, challenging the Order, dtd. 29/7/2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, ('CAT) in Original Application No. 146 of 2004 ('O.A.') filed by the Respondent No. 1, which was allowed to the extent indicated in the judgment of which reference would be made shortly.
3. The 1st Respondent herein is the Applicant and the Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are the Respondent Nos. 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively in O.A. The present 2nd Respondent is the CAT. The parties shall be referred as in the O.A.
4. The Applicant (1st Respondent herein) was initially recruited as Store Keeper Technical Class-III Rank Sapper in Madras Engineer Group and Cen
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an individual's status as an Ex-Serviceman under the relevant rules determines their eligibility for counting past military service towards pa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that re-employment must be substantive, not contractual, to entitle an ex-serviceman to pensionary benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pensi....
Change in pension qualification rules may necessitate a reconsideration of prior options under pension law, ensuring fairness and equitable treatment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Central Administrative Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by converting itself into an administrative authority and issuing directions out....
The court ruled that past services in the territorial army can be counted for pension under the applicable rules at the time of joining, regardless of subsequent rule changes.
Ex-servicemen appointed before the amendment notification are entitled to count approved military service for pay fixation, regardless of subsequent educational qualification requirements.
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
Listen Article