Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court upheld that pension benefits for SVRS optees are payable by DISCOMS, not the Pension Trust, clarified qualifying service rules under CCS Pension Rules, and mandated constitution of Arbitral Tribunals to determine additional contributions.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension payments to employees who took voluntary retirement under DISCOMs’ SVRS are payable by the DISCOMs and not the pension trust, clarified the interpretation of CCS Pension Rules on qualifying service, and upheld the mandatory constitution of arbitral tribunals to determine additional pension contributions.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension liabilities for voluntary retirement under DISCOMS’ SVRS are payable by the DISCOMS, not the Pension Trust, and clarified the computation of qualifying service under CCS Pension Rules.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension payments for employees opting for special voluntary retirement schemes by electricity DISCOMS are the companies' liability, not the Pension Trust's, and clarified pension eligibility rules under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 including rounding of qualifying service but excluding five years’ weightage for eligibility.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension payments to employees under Special Voluntary Retirement Schemes are initially payable by DISCOMS, not the Pension Trust, clarified the interpretation of CCS Pension Rules on qualifying service and pension eligibility, and upheld the constitution of Arbitral Tribunals to determine additional contributions.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension liabilities for employees opting for Special Voluntary Retirement Schemes lie with the DISCOMS, not the Pension Trust, clarified pension calculation rules, and upheld the necessity of Arbitral Tribunals to determine additional contributions.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension payments to employees who voluntarily retired under DISCOMS’ special schemes are payable by the DISCOMS, not the Pension Trust, and clarified the interpretation of qualifying service under CCS Pension Rules.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court upheld that pension payments for voluntary retirees under DISCOMs’ SVRS are payable by the DISCOMs, not the Pension Trust, and clarified the computation of qualifying service under CCS Pension Rules.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pensionary benefits under Special Voluntary Retirement Schemes are payable by DISCOMS, not the Pension Trust, clarified qualifying service calculations under CCS Pension Rules, and upheld the necessity of Arbitral Tribunals to determine liabilities.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension benefits for employees opting for Special Voluntary Retirement Schemes are not payable from the Pension Trust, mandated constitution of arbitral tribunals to determine additional employer contributions, and clarified the computation of qualifying service under CCS Pension Rules.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension liabilities for employees opting for Special Voluntary Retirement Schemes by electricity DISCOMS are not payable from the Pension Trust but initially by DISCOMS, and clarified the correct interpretation of qualifying service and pension rules under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension liability for employees opting for Special Voluntary Retirement Schemes lies with the DISCOMS, not the Pension Trust, clarified qualifying service calculations under CCS Pension Rules, and upheld the necessity of Arbitral Tribunals to determine additional contributions.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
The High Court quashed orders under Section 14-B and appellate orders under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund Act for lack of reasoned consideration and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication with directions to consider the petitioner's submissions.
Vijaymala Sidling Doijad v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that a counter-claim filed after settlement of issues and recording of evidence is generally impermissible and set aside the trial court's order allowing such a belated counter-claim.
Vishal v. The State
The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges due to unreliable last-seen evidence and discrepancies in recovery and motive, emphasizing the need for corroboration in circumstantial cases.
Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Akshay Bahadur & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's direction to reassess contract doctors' suitability by considering their performance and experience, while rejecting the UPSC's narrow evaluation criteria and the Tribunal's reasoning on regularization.
Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a CISF constable for indiscipline and unauthorized absence, affirming that procedural irregularities without prejudice do not vitiate disciplinary proceedings.
st July, 2017 INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & ANR. ..... Through Mr.Gagan Mathur & Mr.Varun Kumar, Advocates. v. SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN MEENA .....
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's quashing of delayed reversion orders reverting employees to lower grades, holding that long acquiescence and known qualifications preclude retrospective reversion.
Rambir Singh v. Govt. of India
The Delhi High Court upheld the lawful, non-stigmatic termination of a BSF probationer’s service under Rule 10(2) of the BSF Rules, rejecting claims of unproven misconduct and procedural irregularities.
Dilip Lalchand Porwal v. State of Maharashtra
The High Court held that the State Human Rights Commission lacks jurisdiction over civil property disputes and quashed its order directing compliance under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.