S.N.Derashri
22 April 2009 at 16:56
It is most urgent. Please help me and let me know some case law or authorititave pronouncements from Hon'ble Supreme Court or any High Court " that the consideration for compulsory retirement pending DE is bad in the eye of law and it amounts to dismissal from service in guise of public interest"
S.N.Derashri
Paresh
22 April 2009 at 16:37
This is to bring to your notice that Mr. Tapubhai Vaghela is an Ex MLA of Gujarat State. At the age of 86 he is not getting any pension from either Maharashtra Govt or any pension from Gujarat Govt.
He has also written many communication mails which is enclosed as below.
I would like you to bring this issue to the notice of the Govt through your popular news media.
What steps he can take further?
TAPUBHAI VAGHELA
(Ex-MLA, Maharashtra (Bombay State & Gujarat State
“MADHUVAN”,
8 – Ramkrishna Nagar,
Vidyanagar Main Road,
Rajkot – 360 002.
(Gujarat
Ph. (0281 6545744)
Dear Sir,
Sub:- Stoppage of pension that Maharashtra Government sanctioned to the members of Legislative Assembly of Bombay (1952-57 & 1957-62 from Gujarat state).
My name is Tapubhai P. Vaghela, Ex-MLA, Maharashtra (Bombay State & Gujarat State, elected from Kunkavav (Gondal region under Bombay state constituency of Bombay Legislative Assembly for the period 1957-1962.)
In the year 1960, the State of Bombay was bifurcated into two new States of Maharashtra and Gujarat by the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960. The present State of Maharashtra came into being on 1 May 1960. I was one among 132 members who came under the purview of Gujarat Legislative Assembly from Bombay Legislative Assembly, elected from Gujarat.
The Maharashtra Government has sanctioned pension under Maharashtra Legislature Member’s Pension Act 1976. Under this act any member elected from Bombay Legislative Assembly during 1957 was eligible for pension. This also includes the members elected from the region, which later on came under the purview of Gujarat Legislative Assembly by the applicability of the Bombay Reorganisation Act 1960. There were 14 members of Gujarat constituency who were held eligible to receive pension by Maharashtra Vidhansabha. Hence, w.r.t. letter no 27701/PENCEL dtd. 17.09.1999 of Maharashtra Vidhansabha, I have received pension with all the arrears w.e.f. 01.04.1977 to 30.06.2002.
All of a sudden this pension was stopped w.e.f. 01.07.2002 by letter no 2792/H/PENCEL dtd. 14.02.2002 without prior intimation. It is quiet surprising that though the Maharashtra Legislature Member’s Pension Act 1976 was never amended, after paying the pension for 25 years, it was stopped at once by misconception of the act through the letter by Maharashtra Vidhansabha as mentioned above.
By this atrocious act by Maharashtra Vidhansabha, I am hung by very tough condition financially, mentally & physically, with no source of income to meet up my and my wife’s requirements at the age of 85 years.
As I am not under condition to fight against the Government through judicial court, I humbly request you to look into this matter at your earliest for suitable justice to me.
Thanking you,
Faithfully,
TAPUBHAI VAGHELA
Ex-MLA, Maharashtra (Bombay State & Gujarat State.)
A.Mohamed Thaheer
20 April 2009 at 11:41
Under what provision of the limitation act, we can seek condonation of delay in filing review petition in the high court against the order of the same high court. what is the normal period of time allowed for making the review petition in the same high court
Let me have a citation of case law by supreme court of india.
anshul sangal
19 April 2009 at 22:29
Sir can you define the doctrine of colorable legislation?
A.Mohamed Thaheer
16 April 2009 at 11:13
In a Writ Petition filed by the Administration for quashing the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, the Bench allowed the Writ Petition without giving a reasonable opportunity to the Respondent for submitting a detailed counter for argument.
In the conclusion of the Order, the Bench directed the Administration to complete the criminal case for a decision within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order, so that the fate of the respondent should not hang on balance indefinetly, for getting his retiral benefits.
But, the Administration has not filed even the counter in the High Court, where the criminal case has been stayed in the High Court,in favour of the Respondent.
Whether not compliance of the direction of the High is taken for granted for the comtempt of court?
Whether, a Review Petition can be made over this judgment for the failure of the Administration, and this fact could be brought to the Bench for remedial action?
hage nibo
16 April 2009 at 01:10
Can a person file writ petition under Art.226 without involving any counsel or lawyer? If so what is the procedures?
Is the affidadit accompanying writ petition compulsory to be identified by a lawyer and sworn before oath commissioner?
hage nibo
16 April 2009 at 01:06
What is the procedures to file a writ petition under Art 226 by the petitioner himself(without the help of any counsel/advocate/lawyer)?
Is the affidavit accompanying writ petition is compulsory to be identified by an advocate and sworn before Oath Commissioner?
Vassudev Amonkar
15 April 2009 at 13:42
Hi,
can anybody provide me the latest Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court has recognised the right to strike.
hage nibo
14 April 2009 at 17:19
ONE OF THE RAREST CASE OF A CLIENT
Treat this Serious & an Urgent Case please!!!
( 1 )
Mr. “A”, a civil govt. servant (clerk) was placed under suspension on 16/04/2002, pending disciplinary proceeding against him under the charges of unauthorized absence from the duties.
The inquiry was ordered and held into the charges of unauthorized absence under the provision of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA), 1965 as per the procedures employed to impose major Penalty.
The said suspension Order was revoked on 27/10/2004 & Mr. “A” joined his duty.
The proceeding ultimately ended only with minor penalty of withholding one periodical increment without any cumulative effect, as defined in Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) rules, 1965 read with FR-24.
The said order of revocation is incomplete and impugned in terms of Civil Service Fundamental Rule 54(B) (1).
Because, Fundamental Rule 54(B) (1) requires that when an employee is reinstated, his (a) pay & allowances to be paid for the suspension period and (b) Whether the said period of suspension should be treated as on duty, should clearly be mentioned in the revocation Order.
But, the Order is silent on as to pay and allowances to be paid to “A” after reinstatement as required by FR 54(B)(1)(a). Whereas, it treated the suspension period, w.e.f 16-04-2002 to 26-10-2004 not in duty for any purpose.
Mr. “A” was imposed only minor penalty as defined in Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) rules 1965 read with FR-24 i.e withholding one periodical increment without any cumulative effect.
Order/Administrative instruction of the Govt. of India runs as:
“Suspension should be held wholly unjustified when the proceedings end with minor penalty. - The Staff Side of the Committee of the National Council set up to review the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, had suggested that in cases where a Government servant, against whom an inquiry has been held for the imposition of a major penalty, is finally awarded only a minor penalty, the suspension should considered unjustified & full Pay & Allowances paid for suspension period. Government have accepted this suggestion of the Staff Side. Accordingly, where departmental proceedings against a suspended employee for the imposition of a major penalty finally end with the imposition of minor penalty, the suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified in terms of FR 54-B and the employee concerned should, therefore, be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by passing a suitable order under FR 54-B.
Thereafter Mr. “A” wrote an appeal/representation to reconsider the said Order to the same authority, but a threatening letter was replied on 20/7/2005 that the case may be reopened and reviewed from the beginning {with the case of forging medical certificates that Mr. “A” used in this case to regularize his absent period} if Mr. “A” keeps on arguing it.
And ( 2 )
. Mr. “A” again remained absent unauthorizedly from 01-09-2005 to 31-08-2006 (one full year) from his service without informing his controlling officer, as the officer was not in the station at that time.
Mr. ”A” again rejoined his duties on 01-09-2006, after remaining absent from 01-09-2005 to 31-08-2006.
. Mr. “A” applied for the Extra Ordinary Leave on medical ground for the absence period from 01-09-2005 to 31-08-2006, for regularization of his absent period.
But Mr.
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
about vote casting
Hello Respected all, I want to suggest & want to know that how my suggestion can take legal stand. My suggetion is that to Improve voter percentage there should be a vote cast certificate which must be issued by presiding officer in favour of voter,this certificate must compulsory for all gov. facilities like DL,Pass port,addmission of children & other Important activities.Thus certificate will last long till next election.This type of action can improve vote cast percentage in our country.