REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Vachaspati Dixit Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

LINDSAY PETROLEUM CO.V. PROSPER ARMSTRONG HURD [REFERRED TO]
K V RAJLAKSHMIAH SETTY VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
MOON MILLS LIMITED VS. M R MEHER PRESIDENT INDUSTRIAL COURT BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. BALWANT REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE AMRAVATI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. ARUN KUMAR PATNATK [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. PYARIMOHAN SAMANTARAY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. NANDLAL JAISWAL [REFERRED TO]
S S RATHORE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
LIPTON INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M R GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL VS. TARUN K ROY [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VS. K THANGAPPAN [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN U P JAL NIGAM VS. JASWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SHIV DASS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SHIV DASS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. PAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SAMARJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
LALJI TIWARI S/O RAM LOCHAN VS. U P PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State.

(2.) The petitioner has instituted this writ petition assailing judgment and order dated 16.11.2015 passed by State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') and punishment order dated 7.9.2007 passed by the competent authority. He has claimed relief for all consequential service benefits of pay, arrears of pay and to revise the pension. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.2015, Tribunal has dismissed Claim Petition No. 2446 of 2010 (Vachaspati Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and another) as time barred.

(3.) It is pleaded in the grounds of writ petition that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2013 from the post of District Entertainment Tax Officer at Gorakhpur. He was in the pay-scale of Rs. 20820 and Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 and his post was Class-II Officer. It is contended that The Tribunal has rejected claim petition illegally on the ground of limitation observing that the claim petition has been filed after lapse of five years. The Tribunal has applied wrong provisions of U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal Act , 1976).

Click here to view full judgment.

VACHASPATI DIXIT Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address