Pension issues in SBI–Delhi High Court order dt 12/8/16 Rf: Case No.W.P(C) 1875/2013:



Source –Keshav Saini

10881486_1016309615062877_1718043244602304723_n_thumb

DEAR SIRS, AS PER WEB SITE OF DELHI HIGH COURT,THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2016 OF DELHI HIGH COURT IS AS UNDER——–

1  AN ADJOURNMENT SLIP HAS BEEN CIRCULATED WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES.

2   THE RESPONDENTS SHALL ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH OUR ORDERS pensionerDATED 9TH FEBRUARY,2016 AND 26TH APRIL,2016.

3 WE BOTH ARE IN DIFFERENT BENCHES AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RETAIN THE MATTER AS PART-HEARD MATTER.THE MATTER IS RELEASED AS PART-HEARD MATTER.

4   LIST FOR DIRECTIONS BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE BENCH ON 22ND AUGUST,2016.

AUGUST12,2016


The above is the news, as already published in the NEWSPAGE of this blog, the source being K R Saini. This enables the pensioners/ readers to read necessary perspective in relations to pensioners case being heard of Delhi High Court.

PS:The latest news as received from KR Saini about the Bench and the team is like this:

…… NOW OUR CASE NO W.P(C)1875/2013 WILL BE HEARD BY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA AND HON’BLE MS JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA IN COURT NO 6 BENCH NO VII ON 22.08.2016.

WITH BEST REGARDS.

 

Advertisements

Author: neelkanth

Certainly not a celebrity but do have inquisitiveness to know things, realise them and live them to the extent possible. My interest in History, Art of Living and behavioural science is an element that inspires me.Am a poet,an author,a consultant, an advisor on computers and behavioural science.Served as Director in Central Board of State Bank of India.Remained associated with trade union activities and industrial relations as President,All India State Bank of India Staff Federation.Led a delegation on computers to several countries abroad number of times as from State Bank of India/ Banking Industry. Was twice accorded with NATIONAL AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE by All India Freelance Journalists Association, Chennai (India). My email address is: neelkanthshahi@gmail.com

5 thoughts on “Pension issues in SBI–Delhi High Court order dt 12/8/16 Rf: Case No.W.P(C) 1875/2013:”

  1. So besides GOI,the penfed also sought adjournment.Had the counsels of penfed vehemently opposed the adjournment sought by GOI,the case would have ended on that day,either carry,if GOI counsel refused to carry on the case,or the court would have passed orders,for non compliance of court order by GOi.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. My sincere thanks with a gratitude I owe you for your tangibly positive support.
      Whatever are the developments shall be communicated to you. Please keep in touch with NewsPage on this blog.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s