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

2017 Supreme(Jhk) 1888

S.N.PATHAK
Pratima Jayaswal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate, for the Appellant; Chanchal Jain, Advocate, for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

S.N. Pathak, J. – Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for payment of arrears of increment from 2007 and fixation of pension accordingly on the revised pay scale.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 17.01.1973 and his date of birth was 14.07.1950 thereafter he was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police and at the time of his retirement i.e. on 31.07.2010 he was further promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The husband of the petitioner superannuated from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from the District of Bokaro. The husband of the petitioner expired on 24.1.2015 as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. After retirement of the husband of the petitioner all the retiral benefits were paid but he received only increment till 01.03.2007 but subsequently it was stopped on the ground that he did not pass departmental examination and hence this writ petition has been preferred.

4. Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that respondent-authorities have illegally withheld the arrears of increme

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