Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court directed for the CRPF personnel to be considered as having proceeded on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30-06-2021.
On being informed that her services were yet to be regularized, in view of the urgency to contest the elections, aspiring for a career in politics, she submitted the resignation letter.
“A “resignation” of a Public Office, when made with an intention of relinquishing the office, accompanied by an act relinquishment, then nothing further is required. Resignation once accepted, cannot be allowed to be withdrawn.” Observed the High Court
The Court was deciding the case where the ex-employees of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation had challenged decision denying the benefit of revision of pay scales, as recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission, to the employees who had retired or died during the period of 01.01.2006 to 29.03.2010.
Whether or not an employee should be permitted to retire in accordance with the Scheme in the event that the Scheme itself provides for retirement to become effective upon completion of the notice period. The VRS that was implemented by the Department is, in essence, an expression of the Department’s aim to prune the overstaffed positions.
Gujarat High Court: The instant petitions came up before the Court challenging the Award of the Labour Court, Vadodara, whereby which it
Armed Forces Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench): The Bench of Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary (Member J) and Vice Admiral HCS Bisht (Member A), granted
“To allot the plots to those employees who were found to be in unauthorized occupation would tantamount to giving a premium to their illegality and remaining in occupation and possession of the quarters illegally and unauthorizedly.”
“Having tendered ‘resignation’, the respondent had to suffer the consequences and could not be permitted to take ‘U’ turn and say that what the respondent wanted was ‘premature retirement’ and not ‘resignation’.”
Delhi High Court: In a matter wherein, a Judicial Assistant sought voluntary retirement, V. Kameswar Rao, J., observed that in view of
Patna High Court: Birendra Kumar, J., addressed the instant petition against the order of State whereby the petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement
Supreme Court: In a case where the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and MR Shah, JJ was hearing a reference
Patna High Court: Ashutosh Kumar, J., directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of
Patna High Court: A Division Bench of Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Anjana Mishra, JJ. dismissed an appeal for voluntary retirement filed against
Rajasthan High Court: Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. allowed the writ petition for the benefit of the Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) as no reference
Allahabad High Court: In a recent judgment passed by the Division Bench comprising of Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora and Rajnish Kumar JJ.,
Bombay High Court: A writ petition by former employees of the respondent bank who asserted that differentiating between ‘resignation’ and ‘voluntary retirement’ was
Supreme Court: Interpreting the provisions of Sections 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vis-à-vis a Voluntary Retirement Scheme framed by the