Back
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Basudeo Prasad Triyar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Ankur Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Jharkhand.
3. Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State of Bihar.
4. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 7.
5. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:—
AND/OR
(b) For the Petitioner further prays for Issuance an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) or writ in nature of the mandamus commanding upon the concerned Respondents authorities, particularly to Respondent No. - 3 to take appropriate steps for proper fixation of the pension of the Pet
Resignation does not qualify as voluntary retirement under Rule 66 of the Pension Rules, and service on fixed pay is not eligible for pension.
A government employee who resigns from service due to personal or domestic reasons without any pending disciplinary proceedings is entitled to proportionate pension under Rule 6.16(2), as the forfeit....
Pension is a right of an employee and cannot be withheld without a proper inquiry and findings of misconduct; mere allegations or pending criminal cases are insufficient grounds for such action.
Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rules is not applicable to cases where the misconduct in question occurred while the petitioner was in service and departmental proceedings had already been initiated agains....
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
