Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, GAURANG KANTH
Rajendra Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside of the correspondences/communications/letters dated 16.12.2014, 17.02.2015, 20.09.2017, 27.11.2017, 20.04.2018 and 21.06.2021 issued by the respondent-CRPF; directions to the respondents to grant him notional promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant w.e.f. 01.02.2016, and fixation of his pay and pension accordingly; directions to the respondents to grant him full arrears of salary for the period from 01.02.2015 to 31.01.2018, and to grant him full arrears of pension recalculated based on aforesaid prayers.
2. For the similar and same issue(s), petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C) 8573/2022 before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.05.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application, i.e. CM Appl.18961/2023, seeking recalling of order dated 27.05.2022, however, the said application was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.04.2023 while giving liberty to petitioner to take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, if permissible in law.
3. Thereafter, th
Misuse of judicial process through filing repeated applications and writ petitions is not permissible.
The court emphasizes that pending representations must be decided with reasoned orders, ensuring that administrative decisions are not made mechanically.
The court's decision was influenced by the application of settled law from previous judgments.
The court has the discretion to dispose of a petition by allowing the petitioner to file a revision petition and directing the respondents to consider the mental condition of the petitioner and pass ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the respondent to take a final decision on the petitioner's appeal within a specified timeframe.
The main legal point established is that an employee is entitled to pension and post-retiral benefits as per the initial order of compulsory retirement, and subsequent amendments denying such benefit....
Assurance from respondents regarding no action against petitioner due to premature transfer influenced the court's decision.
Recovery of excess payment from retired employees is restricted under exceptional circumstances, especially after a significant time lapse.
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
