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

2009 Supreme(SC) 1341

DALVEER BHANDARI, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam – Appellant
Versus
Bachan Singh – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants :Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Sandeep Chaturvedi, Sanjay Singh, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Manjit Singh, B.S. More, AAG, B.S. Malik, Sr. ADv., Pranab Kumar Mullick, S.K. Patri, Shish Pal Laler, Balbir Singh Gupta, Manoj Swarup, Akshat Goel, Ms. Jyoti Srivastav a, Ms. Hetu Arora, Arvind Minocha, R.K. Rathore, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Jasbir Singh Malik, Daya Krishan Sharma, Gagan Gupta, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Gaurav Twatia, B.S. Jain, Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Nitin Jain, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, R.K. Kapoor, Ms. Gunjan Sinha, Anis Ahmed Khan, Shashi Bhushan, Ms. Mansi Dhiman, Ms. Gunjan Sinha, Shashi Bhushan, Ms. Vivekta Singh, B.K. Satija, S.K. Sabharwal, Binay Kumar Jha, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, T.V. George, Amit Singh, Ms. Kusum Singh, R.C. Gaushik, V. Balaji, Pravesh Thakur, Narendra Kumar, S.S. Dhahiya, Santosh Krishnan, Debasis Misra, Dr. Ramesh K. Haritash, Dr. Kailash Chand, Ms. Divya Godra, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Himanshu Upadhyay, Nitin Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Ms. Suresh Kumari, Arvind Nayar, Ms. Kavita Wadia, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.—

1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgments and orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

3. Basic controversy involved in all these appeals is of similar nature. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to recapitulate the facts incorporated in Civil Appeal No. 4903 of 2009 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.23708 of 2005 filed against the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No.3729 of 2004 on dated 28.7.2005.

4. The respondents herein has joined the services of the appellant as Laboratory Attendant in work-charge capacity on 16.5.1963 and continued to perform his duties on work-charge basis on different posts until he was regularized as Head Mistry w.e.f. 14.10.1981. The respondent was a member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme (for short ‘EPF Scheme’). During the period he remained a work-charge employee, the respondent had attained the age of superannuation and retired from the service on 28.2.2001. The appellants computed respondent’s pensionary benefits by taking into account only the services rendered by him on regular





























































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