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

2001 Supreme(Chh) 21

L.J.SINGH
RAMRATAN MEHSRAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent


ORDER

1. The applicant has filed this petition with a prayer that the respondents be ordered to pay the amount of anticipatory pension, pension, gratuity: family benefit, Provident Fund, leave encashment, and surrendered leave of 9 months. The arrears of increments from the year 1989 to 1994 and T.A. bill for return to home after retirement and T.A. bills for attending the D.E. He has also prayed that the respondents be ordered to send N.O.C. to the respondent no. 6, so that the amount of pay order received by the Treasury Officer since 236-97 be paid to the applicant.

2. Main contention of the applicant is that the applicant retired as a Naib Tahsildar from 31-3-94. For Payment of commuted pension of Rs. 39,162/ - and family benefit of Rs. 37,487/- pay order has been received by the Treasury Officer of Durg. The Treasury Officer, Durg, respondent no. 6 wrote a letter to the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 4 wrote a letter to the respondent no. 5 Tahsildar Manendragarh but due to act of the respondent no. 5 Tahsildar Manendragarh the N.O.C. has not been sent to the Treasury Officer, Durg, hence the applicant failed to receive above amounts.

3. Further contention of the applic










































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