Review application disposed of as it sought clarification from an order which already held the petitioner was entitled to pension based on rules and government resolutions without needing further clarification on the allowance rate.
Review application disposed of. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 ra 121.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2015 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 8987 OF 2014
Shafat Hussain Shafaquat Hussain Talib .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri S. V. Adwant, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. S. S. Raut, A.G.P. for Respondents/State.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE : 14TH OCTOBER, 2016.
PER COURT :
. Mr. Adwant, the learned counsel for the review applicant states that, the present review is being agitated only on the ground that in the order dated 08th May, 2015 in Writ Petition No. 8987 of 2014 this Court had not clarified the rate at which non practicing allowance is to be considered. According to the learned counsel, the benefit of 06th Pay Commission is made applicable to all the employees who have retired after 01.01.2006. As per the said scheme non practicing allowance is 35%, however, the respondents are not giving the said benefit to the petitioner. The learned counsel relies on the Government Resolution dated 30th October, 2009 and the corrigendum dated 15th December,
2 ra 121.15
[ V. L. ACHLIYA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/Oct. 16
Shafat Hussain Shafaquat Hussain Talib
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. Gangapurwala
V. L. Achliya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
