Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Indian Ex Borderman Movement – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for retirement age clarification. (Para 2) |
| 2. claim of parity with dev sharma ruling. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. clarification on eligibility based on age. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. dismissal of petition based on prior judgment. (Para 7) |
| 5. order issuance and communication of judgment. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J.: (Oral)--The hearing has been done by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
(a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the age of superannuation of the Members of the petitioners Association as 60 years and thereby grant them retiral/financial by way of extending the benefits in terms of paragraph 72 of judgement dated 31.01.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (C) N0.1951/2012 titled as 'Dev Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors';, consequently the members of the petitioners association may be entitled for arrears on account of fixation of pension with interest.
(b) Pass any such other orders as it may deem fit to this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are similarly situated as the petitioners in th
Eligibility for retirement benefits hinges on age criteria established by precedent; those exceeding the age limit before a specified date are disqualified.
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.
Uniform retirement age for all members of the CAPFs and entitlement to retirement benefits based on the differential period.
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....
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.
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....
The right to receive pension as property under article 300(a) of the Constitution of India and the State's obligation to release retiral dues.
The principle of 'no work, no pay' and the importance of challenging decisions that affect one's rights were central to the court's decision.
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
