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

2022 Supreme(All) 700

SANGEETA CHANDRA
Kedar Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: V.K. Singh, J.P. Singh.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., B.P. Singh.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case.

2. None appears on behalf of B.S.A. although name of Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the B.S.A. has been shown in the cause list.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Head Clerk in the Office of Sub Deputy Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh and retired on 31.3.2006 after attaining the age of 60 years. The petitioner had submitted his option to retire at the age of 60 years, therefore, he was covered under the Government Order dated 16.9.2009 which was issued accepting the recommendation of the Pay Commission revising the rates of pension/gratuity/family pension and commutation of pension in relation to teachers and employees of the Basic Education Board retiring on 01.01.2006 or thereafter. Paragraph 4(1) of the said government order provides that such teaching/non-teaching employees who retired before completing 10 years of qualifying service though not entitled to get pension like government servants, would be entitled to receive gratuity, if they retired on attaining the age of 60 years. Paragraph 4(4) of Government Order dated 16.09.2009 clarifies that teaching/non-t

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