Partly allowed

Shiv Prakash Saxena & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC5 Jan 2016LPA/5/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed the appeal subject to exceptions, clarifying that the appellants' reliance on a 1991 note is incorrect based on factual history. The bench noted the appellants acted under and accepted benefits of a 1994 VRS Scheme, preventing them from challenging its terms in 2015. The appeal was dismissed in limine with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed in limine. Appeal allowed subject to exceptions clarifying factual inaccuracies regarding the VRS Scheme policy.

Shiv Prakash Saxena & Ors. Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 5/2016

¶4

SHIV PRAKASH SAXENA & ORS. .....Appellants Represented by: Mr.S.P.Saxena, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Represented by: Mr.Rajesh Gogja, Advocate for R-1 to R-3

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 05.01.2016

CM No.204/2016

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

¶12

LPA No.5/2016

¶13

Concurring with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants, we only add that the case pleaded by the appellants with reference to the so called policy decision taken by the Cabinet is incorrect on facts. The appellants are confusing a note dated November 27, 1991 signed by the Deputy Secretary which was placed before the Hon’ble Minister of Commerce. In the note the proposal is that the proposed VRS Scheme should include terminal benefit by way of pension and commutation limited to 1/3^rd of the pro-rata pension.

¶14

The appellants overlook that the said proposal dated November 27, 1991 was considered at various tiers and ultimately found reflection in a

¶15

LPA No.5/2016

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

note for the Cabinet dated April 04, 1994 as per which the VRS Scheme had a onetime package with entire pension to be commuted. In terms of the approval granted by the Cabinet to the note dated April 04, 1994 the VRS Scheme was introduced and terms were notified. Appellants acted under the VRS Scheme. The learned Single Judge had already noted that a writ petition filed in the year 2008 challenging the terms of the voluntary retirement scheme was dismissed and the order attained finality.

¶18

We would be failing not to highlight that the circular dated May 21, 1994 laid bare the terms of the VRS Scheme. Appellants accepted full benefits under the scheme which included full commutation of the pension and cannot now in the year 2015 raise the issue concerning the scheme.

¶19

The appeal is dismissed in limine.

¶20

For record we note that appellant No.1 is a lawyer and he has filed the appeal in his capacity as a lawyer for all the appellants.

¶21

No costs.

¶22

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

¶23

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶24

JANUARY 05, 2016 mamta

¶25

LPA No.5/2016

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Shiv Prakash Saxena & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Prakash Saxena & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Kaur Vs Ram Narula & Ors.

Rajiv Narula Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Jagdish Kumar Lal Thr Lrs Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Anuradha Kalra Vs the Delhi Development Authority

Shri Panchayati Akhara Naya Udaseen Vs Union of India & Ors.

Hari Kishore Sharma Vs Chief Secretary Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.