SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Jhk) 1050

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
Arjun Prasad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent


ORDER

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This application has been preferred by petitioner against the order issued by the Accountant General (A and E) II, Bihar, Patna as contained in letter No. Pen 811-4502 dated 17th May, 2001, whereby and where under the pension of petitioner has been fixed at a lower stage of Rs. 8,650/- instead of Rs. 9,000/- which was the last pay drawn by him; the consequential order issued by the commandant, Home Guard, Bihar, Patna is also under challenge. The authority rejected the claim of petitioner and held that the pension fixed by the Accountant General, at Rs. 8,650/-is correct and the pension and gratuity has been correctly fixed by the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

2. It appears that the petitioner moved before this Court for proper fixation of pension and gratuity in WP (S) No. 5206/2001. In the said case a counter- affidavit was filed on behalf of the Accountant General, Bihar and Jharkhand with the stand that last pay of the petitioner was shown as Rs. 8,650/- but the provisional pension was wrongly fixed on the basis of Rs, 9,000/-. For the said reason a sum of Rs. 65130.26 paise was paid to petitioner in excess which has been ordered to be recovered






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top