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

2006 Supreme(All) 1469

SUDHIR AGARWAL
BABU SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Shiv Avtar Sharma for the Petitioner; S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Shiv Avtar Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has sought a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay post retiral benefits as he retired on 30.6.2001.

3. In brief the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 24.10.1973 on the post of Godam Chowkidar on temporary ad hoc basis. Subsequently he was regularized vide order dated 2.5.95 passed by the Regional Food Controller, Bareilly Region, Bareilly. After attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner retired on 30.6.2001. However, the respondents have not paid any pension to the petitioner inspite of several representations made by him. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that gratuity of the petitioner has been paid on 23.12.2002 but no pension is payable since the petitioner has not completed minimum ten years service after the date of regularization.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Fundamental Rule 56 read with Paras 424 and 361 of Civil Service Regulations, the petitioner is entitled for pension since the entir











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