Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
PULLA KARTHIK
T. Yakaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's ruling on cut-off date (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. writ petitions dismissed (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
Pulla Karthik, J.
Since the lis raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together, heard and being disposed of by this common order.
2) Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel, representing Ms.Vedula Chitralekha, Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, Sri M.Ramgopal Rao and Sri N.Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners respectively, and Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, representing the learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents.
3) The main grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is to direct the respondents to implement the recommendations of Pay Revision Commission Report-2020 extending the enhanced gratuity and difference of Earned Leave salary to the petitioners, who retired between 01.07.2018 and 01.04.2020, on par with the pensioners, who are drawing the enhanced gratuity/encashment of earned leave w.e.f.01.04.2020.
4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners respectively have submitted that the petitioners herein have worked in various
The court upheld the government's policy decision to set a cut-off date for extending monetary benefits to retirees, affirming that such classifications are permissible under constitutional provision....
It is a well settled principle of law that statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace the statutory rules. The rules made under....
The statutory force of rules, impermissibility of creating two classes of pensioners, and the discriminatory nature of the classification were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Pension entitlement is governed by existing rules, and any revisions depend on state policy, not individual claims based on service length.
The reasonableness of the cut-off date for pension revision and the absence of unreasonableness in the respondent corporation's actions in fixing the cut-off date were the central legal points establ....
Classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
(1) Pay Revision – Whilst fixation of cut-off date for grant of benefits cannot be questioned, what is within domain of court, is to examine impact of such fixation and whether it results in discrimi....
The principle of uniformity in granting monetary benefits and prohibition of discrimination within the class.
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
