Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
K. Haripal, Judicial Member, Braj Mohan Agrawal, Administrative Member
M.T. Sunilkumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. list of applicants and appointment details (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. applicants challenge pfrda act and seek old pension (Para 4) |
| 3. respondents oppose on limitation and nps validity (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. oral arguments on ordinance lapse and constitutionality (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. nps introduction and pfrda ordinance history (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. oa barred by limitation; stale representations (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. nps policy valid; act 2013 retrospectively saves actions (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. ccs rules exclude post-2003 appointees; no ops entitlement (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. pension policy decisions non-interferable by courts (Para 29 , 30) |
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member
These 44 applicants have joined together in assailing the validity of Sections 20 and 56 of the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Act 2013, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013 and challenging the correctness of Annexure-A89 Resolution and Annexure-A91 order passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting their representations. They want a declaration that they are entitled to the benefit of statutory pension scheme under the Pensions' Act 1871 and CCS(Pension) R
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
