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

2004 Supreme(Kar) 348

R.GURURAJAN
K. CHENNAKESAVALU – Appellant
Versus
THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION – Respondent


Advocates:
HARIKRISHNA S.HOLLA, Subba Rao Korrapati

R. GURURAJAN, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE HMT LIMITED WITH EFFECT FROM 30-8-1968. HE TOOK VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT ON 13-5-1998. HE WAS A member OF THE EMPLOYEES' FAMILY PENSION SCHEME, 1971 FROM 28-5-1971 to 15-11-1995 HE THEREAFTER CONTINUED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE employees' PENSION SCHEME, 1995 FROM 16-11-1995 TILL THE DATE OF HIS retirement IT IS STATED THAT HE RECEIVED A LETTER DATED 1-9-1998 (ANNEXURE-A) FROM THE SECOND RESPONDENT INFORMING HIM THAT HIS monthly PENSION WOULD BE RS. 399/ -. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, PETITIONER submitted A REPRESENTATION (ANNEXURE-B) SEEKING FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE matter. REPLY WAS SENT STATING THAT THE PENSION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN FIXED. HE REFERS TO SEVERAL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN THIS REGARD. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY POSITIVE RESPONSE, PETITIONER IS BEFORE ME challenging THE ENDORSEMENTS ANNEXURES-C, D, F AND G.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS ENTERED APPEARANCE AND THEY HAVE FILED THEIR statement OF OBJECTIONS. THEY JUSTIFY THEIR ACTION.

( 3 ) HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE material PLACED ON RECORD.

( 4 ) LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER INVITES MY ATTENTION TO THE material FACTS TO CONTEND THAT THE FACTS OF T












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