SMT. SHAKUNTALA MEHRISHI versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMIITEE AND ORS.

SMT. SHAKUNTALA MEHRISHI versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMIITEE AND ORS.

The petitioner, as an existing employee of an aided school who opted for pension and gratuity within the stipulated period, became entitled to those benefits from the date of retirement per the notification dated 17th October, 1975, and the subsequent delays or requirements for governmental approval did not affect her entitlement.

Parties
Petitioner: Smt. Shakuntala Mehrishi; Respondents: New Delhi Municipal Committee and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 March 1990
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed
Legal Topics
Pension and Gratuity Rights, Delhi Education Act, Delhi School Education Rules, Retirement Benefits for Aided School Employees

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Shakuntala Mehrishi

Petitioner

New Delhi Municipal Committee and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether employees of aided schools who opted for pension are entitled to the benefit of the scheme notified on 17th October, 1975
  2. 2 Whether approval or finalisation of modalities by the Government of India was a condition precedent to the enforceability of the notification

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner, as an existing employee of an aided school who opted for pension and gratuity within the stipulated period, became entitled to those benefits from the date of retirement per the notification dated 17th October, 1975, and the subsequent delays or requirements for governmental approval did not affect her entitlement.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed

Orders

  • Respondents are directed to pay pension to petitioner from date of retirement under notification dated 17th October, 1975.
  • Respondents are directed to pay other retirement benefits to petitioner.