REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

TARAMATI NANDKISHORE SHARMA Appellant

V/S

CANTONMENT BOARD Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

JOHN WIKE'S CASE [REFERRED TO]
LIVER SIDGE V. ANDERSON [REFERRED TO]
BREEN V. AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION [REFERRED TO]
BLACKLEY V. DEVONDALE CREAM (VIC.) PVT. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. JOGENDRA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KHUDIRAM DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
RAM JIVAN VS. PHOOLA [REFERRED TO]
RANGASWAMI THE TEXTILE COM MISSIONER THE TEXTILE COMMISSIONER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VS. SAGAR TEXTILE MILLS P LTD:SHRI JAGDISH PROCESS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF VS. SUBHASH CHANDRA YADAV [REFERRED TO]
A SUNDARAMBAL VS. GOVERNMENT OF GOA DAMAN AND DIU [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA DHAR PANDE VS. VIDYUT GRIH SIKSHA SAMITI [REFERRED TO]
PALURU RAMKRISHNAIAH R D DEGAONKAR AND VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARJAS KANYALAL BHATIJA PRAHALAD HIRANAND ADVANI VS. COLLECTOR THANE MAHARASHTRA:COLLECTOR THANE MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
RAJ SONI VS. AIR OFFICER INCHARGE ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
M G PANDKE VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HINGANGHAT DISTRICT WARDHA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. HARI DUTT SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
AGARWAL MEDICAL AND GENERAL STORES VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
M P S R T C VS. RAMCHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
TARA MALIK VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI KANT SHUKLA VS. PRESIDENT BIRLA EDUCATION SOCIETY SATNA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of connected petitions M. P. No. 1078/93 - Smt. Prabha Rathore v. The Cantonment Board and another; M. P. No. 1365/93 - Mrs. R. Amit v. The Cantonment Board and another; M. P. No. 1015/93 - Smt. Shakuntala Shrivas v. The Cantonment Board; and M. P. No. 1414/94 - Smt. Dulari Jaiswal v. The Cantonment Board and another.

(2.) IN all these petitions, the core question involved is whether petitioners, teachers/lecturers, in school managed by the Cantonment Board, Mhow (Respondent No. 1) are liable to be superannuated at the age of 58 years or whether they are entitled to continue till attainment of the age of 60 or 62 years and alternatively whether the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Lucknow (respondent No. 2) is under obligation to sanction retention in service in terms of Rule 22 (1) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 (for short, 'rules'), framed under Section 280 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (for short, 'act') till the attainment of the age of sixty years so as to push the position at par with State Act/rules?

(3.) FACTS first. They lie in a narrow compass and tell the tale in each petition as under

Click here to view full judgment.

TARAMATI NANDKISHORE SHARMA Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address