Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNION OF INDIA THRU' SECY. MIN. OF FINANCE & ITS SECY. versus B.P. SINGH (INDIAN POSTAL SERVICE) POSTAL DIRECTORATE & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Union Of India Thru' Secy. Min. Of Finance & Its Secy. v. B.P. Singh (Indian Postal Service) Postal Directorate & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 14962 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 6873 (2 December 2005)

 

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

COURT NO.34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14962 of 2002

Union of India & Ors.

Versus

B.P. Singh (Indian Postal Service) & Anr.

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

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 07.10.20053 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 1421 of 1997.

Shri B.P. Singh, the respondent no.1 had filed the above Original Application for a direction to pay the additional pay to him for additional charge of Post Master General, Allahabad and Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur from 16th August, 1993 to 22.10.1997 except for a period of 61 days as prescribed under Fundamental Rule 49  together with interest at the rate of 10 percent. The learned Tribunal, after a careful perusal of the provisions of Fundamental rule 49, allowed the Original Application holding that the logic behind Fundamental Rule 49 is to take note of combination of appointments and due compensation to the holder of such appointments. In the instant case, additional charge was given at a distance of 300 kilometers away and it was not for a period of few months but it continued for about four years. Therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.

Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

The payment may be made with 10 percent interest from the date of filing the Original Application before the Tribunal till the date of payment, within a period of three months from the date of filing a certified copy of this order before the petitioner no.3 (respondent no.3 before the Tribunal). In case the petitioner no.3 is not the authority competent to pass the appropriate order in respect of the payment, he shall forward the matter forthwith to the authority concerned and the said authority shall make the payment, as directed hereinabove.

02.12.2005

AHA


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.