AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Hari Shankar, J.
These review petitions are predicated on the ground that all the petitioners were not appointed consequent to the advertisement dated 15 September 1987. This contention is squarely in the teeth of the submissions contained in para 1(a) of the written submissions filed under cover of an index dated 28 February 2023, which reads, thus:
“1.That the above case was partly heard, and the Hon'ble Court directed the answering respondent to produce record of the relevant pension scheme and regarding employees of APEDA joining EPFO. Accordingly, following submissions are made: -
(a)APEDA had released an advertisement dated 15.09.1987 seeking applications for recruitment for various posts, in the leading newspapers, according to which in addition to basic pay the post carries HRA. City Allowance, DA, Leave Travel Conveyance, Medical Reimbursement and Superannuation benefit of Pension, gratuity, etc., as applicable to employees of Government of India. The Petitioners had applied on the basis of above advertisement and were appointed to various posts with the understanding of Pensionary benefits. The copy of advertisement is at Annexure- P/1 at page 72. As regards compensation package, the said advertisement mentioned as follows: -
"In addition to basic pay, the posts carry House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, and Dearness Allowance, Leave Travel Concession, Medical re-imbursement and superannuation benefits of pension, Gratuity etc., as applicable to employees of Government of India will also be available "
In this view of the matter, we cannot allow the review petitioners to take a stand in the review petitions which is contrary to the stand which they have taken before this Court in writing.
W.P.(C) 8679/2018 & conn. Page 2 of 3
The review petitions are accordingly dismissed.