REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Praveen Kumar Agarwal Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

VIJAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P [REFERRED TO]
T DEVADASAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND UNOTHER [REFERRED TO]
DWARKA PRASAD LAXMI NARAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD USMAN VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DEOKINANDAN PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
DEOKINANDAN PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. SHAMSHER JANG BAHAUUR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. K R ERRY AND SOBHAG RAI MEHTA:SHRI KHAUSHAL SINGH P A S [REFERRED TO]
E P ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY SECUNDERABAD VS. A V R SIDDHANTTI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. IQBAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VS. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AJAY HASIA VS. KHAUID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA LIMITED VS. NERGESH MEERZA [REFERRED TO]
D S NAKARA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M C MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ROOP CHAND ADLAKHA VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD D R MEHTA VS. SOMDUTT UPPAL:SOMDUTT UPPAL [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY H S E B VS. SURESH [REFERRED TO]
K R LAKSHMAN VS. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD [REFERRED TO]
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
ESSEN DEINKI VS. RAJIV KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
EASLAND COMBINES COIMBATORE VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE COIMBTORE [REFERRED TO]
S M NILAJKAR VS. TELECOME DISTRICT MANAGER KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAL GIRISHBHAI SONI VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BARODA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EMPLOYEES of Development Authorities through its Association and in personal capacity, who were holding various posts including Finance Advisor, Chief Engineer, Chief Town Planner, Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer, etc., have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby claiming post retiral benefits including regular pension at par with the Government employees. Some of the petitioners are employees of various departments of State of U.P., State owned Corporations, Public Undertakings, Municipalities etc., appointed in pursuance of provisions contained in sub-section 2 of Section 5 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short Act). Their services were later on, absorbed as the members of Centralised Services created under the U. P. Development Authorities Centralised Service Rules, 1985 (in short Centralised Service Rules) which came into force with effect from 25.6.1985 under Section 5(A) of the Act.

(2.) UNDER the Act, following categories of persons have been appointed in Development Authorities of the State namely:

(3.) EVEN some of the employees falling in the present categories, are being paid pension in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court. Smt. Rita Bhatnagar wife of late Anil Bhatnagar is being paid pension in pursuance of the order dated 13.12.2001 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.42495 of 2001. Sri Girija Shanker Mishra from all Centrallised Service, is being paid pension in pursuance of the Government order dated 12.9.2003. In pursuance of the Government order dated 29.9.1983, the all class-III and class-I employees of Development Authorities have been sanctioned pension by the respective Development Authorities.

Click here to view full judgment.

PRAVEEN KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address