Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Anish Kumar Gupta, JJ
State of UP and 3 others – Appellant
Versus
Arun Kumar Srivastava – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay condonation application accepted. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's service tenure inclusive of work charge sought for pension. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. single judge ruling adhered to contradictions of service and pension provisions. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. counterarguments against pension eligibility considered. (Para 7 , 11) |
| 5. final verdict allows appeal, rejecting prior work charge consideration in pension calculations. (Para 12 , 19) |
1. Learned counsel for the opposite party-petitioner states that he is not inclined to file an objection to the delay condonation application and he has no objection in case delay condonation application is allowed.
2. For the reasons stated in affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing Special Appeal, the delay condonation application is allowed. The Special Appeal is treated to have been filed well within time.
Special Appeal
3. Heard Sri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-State respondents and Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party-petitioner.
4. Present Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad H
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
