Back
P. MADHAVI DEVI
Nageshwar Rao – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for records up to the issuances of reply from the office of the respondent No.2 to the writ petitioner and quash the same, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 to extend the benefits, as prayed for in representation of the petitioner dated 13.12.2021 and to pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the writ petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent No.2 Corporation, who retired after 01.01.2007. The respondent No.2 Corporation and ECIL Officers Association (i.e., the ECOA in short), entered into a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) on 26.05.2009 concerning implementation of Revision Pay Scale and Allowances to Executives of ECIL for Board Level and below Board Level Executives. The benefits under the said MOU were agreed to be given with effect from 01.01.2007.
3. Pursuant to the notification of the Revision Pay Scales and other benefits of Board and below Board Level Executi
A statutory corporation cannot withhold the post-retirement benefits of its retired employees without providing them with an opportunity of hearing.
Welfare schemes must be interpreted pro-employee, and retired employees should have the option to choose the scheme that is more beneficial or affordable.
The court upheld the retirement age of 60 for employees of a public sector undertaking, declaring attempts to roll back this age unauthorized without Cabinet approval.
The application of judgments in rem to all similarly situated employees.
The rejection of the proposal to extend the CGH Scheme benefits to retired employees of the Central Silk Board was a policy decision based on resource constraints and economic considerations, which d....
The court affirmed that the discretion to extend superannuation age lies with the employer, considering the institution's interests and financial health, without constituting discrimination.
The enhancement of retirement age is a policy decision of the government, and employees cannot claim a right to continue in service pending such a decision.
No disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, withholding of retirement benefits under the guise of the impugned Memo is unjust, arbitrary.
The effective date for pension benefits based on financial constraints does not violate constitutional rights.
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
