Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus C.A.T., ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Union Of India And Others v. C.A.T., Allahabad And Others - WRIT - A No. 19816 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7800 (17 April 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.12.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No.845 of 2002. The said Application had been filed by Sri D.H. Prasad who had expired during the pendency of the Original Application. His legal heirs were, however, brought on record. The facts have been stated in the judgment of the Tribunal and, therefore, we do not intend to repeat the same except considering the issue involved. The issue involved was whether the applicant could be denied the pension or other terminal benefits on the basis of the last pay drawn by him in the Construction Wing of the Department merely because he had a lien in Stores Branch of the Department and would have drawn a lesser pay than the pay that he drew in the Construction Wing. The Tribunal has observed that the pension is paid on the basis of average pay of the last ten months and, therefore, if an officer is posted to an ex-cadre post, he would be entitled to the pension on the salary he received and, therefore, the Department was not justified in insisting that his pension should be calculated on the reduced pay which he would have drawn had he worked in the Stores Branch of the Department.

In our considered opinion, no fault can be found in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in coming to such a conclusion and none could be pointed out by the petitioners.

There is, therefore, no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt/-17.4.2006

Sharma/19816


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.