HomeEX-SERVICEMANPension Revision

Pension Arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2006 Matter – Supreme Court Judgement

ARREARS WEF 01.01.06 MATTER- JUDGMENT/ ORDER OF THE HSC IN THE SLP- CA CASES IS AS FOLLOWS:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S). 8875-8876 OF 2011

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
VINOD KUMAR JAIN & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

C.A. No.1998 of 2012,
C.A.No.3564 of 2012,
C.A.No.3907 of 2012,
C.A.No.4581 of 2012,
C.A.No.4952 of 2012,
C.A.No.4980 of 2012,
C.A.No.4599 of 2013,
C.A.No.1 of 2015

AND

SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013,
SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 &
SLP(C)No……… of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904)

O R D E R

Heard.

Delay condoned.

C.A.Nos.8875-76 of 2011, C.A. No.1998 of 2012, C.A.No.3564 of 2012, C.A.No.3907 of 2012, C.A.No.4581 of 2012, C.A.No.4952 of 2012, C.A.No.4980 of 2012:

We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.

The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed.

C.A.No.4599 of 2013, C.A.No.1 of 2015 :

No substantial question of law of general/public importance arises for our consideration in these applications for leave to appeal. 
The prayer for leave to appeal is accordingly declined and the applications for leave to appeal dismissed.

SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013
SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 &
SLP(C)Nos………..of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904):

We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.

The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.

Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General,

however submits that in view of the nature of the controversy  as also the extent of financial burden arising out of the implementation of the impugned orders, the petitioners-U.O.I.

may be given reasonable time to do the needful. That prayer is not opposed by counsel opposite.

We accordingly grant four months’ time from today to the petitioners to comply with the impugned orders failing which the contempt petitions pending before the Tribunal can be revived by the concerned petitioners and taken to their logical conclusion.

All impleading and intervention applications are also dismissed.

…………………..J
(T.S. THAKUR)

…………………..J
(R. BANUMATHI)

NEW DELHI
DATED 17th March, 2015.

Stay connected with us via Facebook, Google+ or Email Subscription.

Subscribe to Central Government Employee News & Tools by Email [Click Here]
Follow us: Twitter [click here] | Facebook [click here] Google+ [click here]
Admin

COMMENTS

WORDPRESS: 3
  • ramanna 10 years ago

    The Additional solicitor General probably was unaware of the Pension procedure and that the Pensions arrived at as per Paras 4.1 and 4.2 of OM dtd 2008 of the MoF, GOI are the full pensions without application of pro-rata and as per Pension rules, pro-rata pension is only payable to those who do not qualify full pension, for want of full qualifying service. Thus the payable pension and the full pension are two different aspects and not one and the same as contemplated by the court.

  • gopalaswamy 10 years ago

    Will some one please say what are all exactly will be out the come of these