Back
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
Rajender Singh & Ors – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. - CM APPL. 8524/2021
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 2834/2021
1. Present writ petition has been filed primarily seeking a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of the judgment dated 31st January 2019 passed by this Court in Dev Sharma vs. ITBP & Anr., W.P. (C) No. 1951/2012 to the petitioners by extending their respective dates of retirement to the age of sixty years and consequently recalculating their retiral benefits including pension and gratuity. Petitioners also seek direction to the respondents to add the differential period to the period of service actually rendered by the Petitioners and pay the arrears of retiral benefits and other consequential benefits to the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Petitioners were appointed as Constable (General Duty) in the ITBP and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation prior to the pronouncement of the judgment in Dev Sharma vs. ITBP & Anr. (supra).
3. He states that identically placed persons as the petitioners challenged Rule 8 (a) of the ITBP General Duty Rules in Group-'A' post rules before this Court in Dev Sharma vs. ITBP & Anr. (supra
The entitlement to the benefit of a judgment is limited by subsequent clarifications and specific criteria, and a writ petition cannot be used to challenge previous judgments on grounds of being arbi....
Judgment benefits for extending retirement age apply only to those who had not exceeded age 60 at the time of the ruling; exceeding this age prior to the ruling disqualifies claim to benefits.
Eligibility for retirement benefits hinges on age criteria established by precedent; those exceeding the age limit before a specified date are disqualified.
Uniform retirement age for all members of the CAPFs and entitlement to retirement benefits based on the differential period.
Benefits of enhanced retirement age apply only to personnel who retired prior to the set date and were below the age limit at that time, affirming equality under the law.
The court ruled that pension benefits related to age of superannuation can be applied only to those below the age limit established in prior case law, reinforcing the validity of previous judicial de....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees of the Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board, being governed by the rules and regulations applicable to State Government employees,....
The court affirmed that all Class-IV employees must retire at 60 years, rejecting arbitrary distinctions based on engagement dates as discriminatory under Article 14.
Employees of autonomous bodies like the DRDA cannot claim parity with state government employees regarding retirement benefits unless explicitly provided by law or policy, and changes in retirement a....
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
