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

2008 Supreme(Pat) 1251

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
Md. Rahim Farooqui – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union, of India.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Presiding Officer in Debt Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.) after his superannuation from service of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. Petitioners pension and other emoluments arising out of retirement had accrued to him before he came to be appointed on the present post. He was receiving pension is not in dispute. He is aggrieved by an order communicated to him by the Ministry of Finance dated 30.3.2006, contained in Annexure-5. By virtue of this communication certain objections has been raised on the salary bill payable to him by the concerned authority. This is the cause of action for filing of the present writ application.

3. In the communication, the petitioner has been directed to correct the salary bill in question by deducting gross pension from the salary bill instead of net pension which has been done by the petitioner. The salary bill had been returned to him twice over directing him to make correction by deducting gross pension instead of net pension which would be in consonance with the Rule 3(1) of the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay




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