The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition regarding the petitioner's pension pay scale, noting no reason to interfere with the previous order dated 07.08.2019.
The review petition filed before the earlier order dated 07.08.2019 was dismissed.
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.
UTTAM CHAND NAGPAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.P. Sharma, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Bharathi Raju, Adv. for R-1 to R- 3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
%
O R D E R 29.11.2019
REVIEW PETITION NO. 375/2019
We have heard learned counsels. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that in the tabulation relied upon by the petitioner which reads revised pension/ family pension of pre-2006 pensioners for posts carrying present scales in group “A” “B” “C” & “D”, which is an annexure to OM No. 38/37/08 – P & PW (A), dated 28.01.2013, the petitioner’s case is covered by serial No. 11 which mentions the pay scale with effect from 01.01.1986 as 1640-60-2600-75-2900 (S-10).
The submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that when the petitioner retired on 30.11.1986, he was a Junior Accounts Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner as well.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with our order dated 07.08.2019.
Dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
NOVEMBER 29, 2019 N.Khanna
UTTAM CHAND NAGPAL
UNION OF INDIA
VIPIN SANGHI
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
