Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Suresh Chand Uppal – Appellant
Versus
Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner opted for cpf, missed 2008 gpf pension opportunity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. vipan gupta inapplicable; barred by delay, laches, acquiescence. (Para 4) |
| 3. writ petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
1. Petitioner, aged 79 years, seeks to assail order dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the respondent-Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan, rejecting his representation for switching over to pension under the GPF Scheme.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.
3. The case:
(i). Respondent-University introduced GPF (Pension) Scheme vide notification dated 25.02.1997. Under the said notification, the University employees including the petitioner were directed to place their options for continuing under the CPF or GPF Scheme. Petitioner opted for the CPF Scheme under the notification dated 25.02.1997. He was accordingly granted the benefit of CPF Scheme. Petitioner retired voluntarily in 2004. He accepted all the benefits granted to him under the CPF Scheme.
(ii). On 18.07.2008, the respondent-University offered one more opportunity to all its existing em
Belated post-retirement claim to switch from CPF to GPF pension rejected due to unexplained delay, laches, acquiescence by non-response to 2008 opportunity, and factual distinction from precedents on....
Belated service claims for pay increments rejected due to unexplained delay, laches and acquiescence; prolonged inaction implies consent, barring relief to uphold administrative finality.
A claim for family pension can be denied if the termination of employment was based on false documents and the challenge to that termination is barred by delay and acquiescence.
Claims for service regularization must be timely; significant delays can render them inadmissible due to laches.
Belated overtime claim by retired conductor, raised eight years post-superannuation, rejected due to unexplained delay, laches, and acquiescence, barring equitable relief in service matters.
Delay and laches bar service claims, particularly where acquiescence and potential impact on third-party rights are involved.
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
