Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TALWANT SINGH
Usha Rani – Appellant
Versus
GNCT of Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. history of tribunal actions and petitioner's efforts. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent acknowledges need for merits decision. (Para 3) |
| 3. court sets aside tribunal orders and remands. (Para 4) |
| 4. conclusion and directions for further actions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.08.2020 and 26.10.2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") in OA No.1113/2020 and in RA No.70/2020, filed in OA No.1113/2020, respectively.
2. This matter seems to have chequered history.
2.1. The petitioner, in effect, had approached the Tribunal for the first time, to seek implementation of the notification dated 24.09.2013, issued by General Administration Department, Govt. Of NCT of Delhi, which, according to the petitioner, inter alia, provided the benefit of re-employment up to 65 years of age, albeit, as part-time vocational teacher.
2.2. Furthermore, we are told that, the petitioner also sought post-retirement pensionary benefit, based on the very same notification, which is dated 29.04.2013.
2.3. The record shows that, the petitioner withdrew the aforement
The court emphasized the right to a remedy when procedural dismissals hinder substantive adjudication, mandating that cases should be heard on their merits.
There is no automatic right to re-employment for teachers post-superannuation if performance evaluations indicate unsatisfactory results, and the decision against re-employment must be based on delib....
A claim for interest on delayed retiral benefits cannot be maintained independently without a prior order directing payment, particularly if disciplinary proceedings are pending.
Procedural irregularities in an adjudicatory process cannot be sustained, and the person(s) who hear an aggrieved party must decide and render reasons.
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.
Recoveries of overpaid salaries from employees must adhere to principles of administrative fairness and provide opportunity for defense, particularly when nearing retirement.
Pension is a property under Article 300(A) of the Constitution, and its non-release constitutes a violation of rights, requiring timely disbursement when no pending proceedings exist.
The Tribunal has authority to issue interim orders directing benefits during unresolved proceedings, contingent on the merit of the original application.
Tribunals must adequately consider repeated legal claims; dismissal at the admission stage unsupported by substantial reasoning is improper.
Judicial review should not overturn administrative tribunal decisions unless they are perverse or ill-founded, ensuring the enforcement of employee rights.
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
