Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers ... vs Union Of India And Others on 10 December, 1991

J.B. Gupta, Ex-Senior Auditor vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 3 September, 2007

In this connection, the ratios in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, Indian Ex-Services League v. Union of India, State Government Pensioners' Association v. State of A.P., and All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Association v. Union of India are apt. In all these cases, the prescription of a cut-off date for implementation of such benefits was held not to be arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shri K.L. Mehndiratta, S/O Late Shri Ram ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 14 February, 2008

31. If the above is read with the decision in the case of All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Association (supra), it would reveal that the above order was only deemed to have been an extension of an already existing scheme. In that case the Apex court has held, 'It is not a new retrial benefit. It is an upward revision of an existing benefit.' In any event, the applicants in the instant case do not claim the benefit of the circular of 25-11-1992. Thus, Full Bench judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rajinder Pal Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 30 October, 2012

In my view a combined reading of Regulation - 3 read with Regulation 34 clearly shows that the petitioners are also entitled to get the pensionary benefits which are extended by the Bank, even though it is for the first time. What the bank wants is a distinction between the employees who are retired and the employees who sought voluntary retirement and retired. This distinction surely in my view is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION and Ors. v. UNION OF INDIA and Ors. has held as follows:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 43 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Fudki Mohanta Alias Phudakia Mohanta vs South Eastern Railway on 1 August, 2024

So far as reliance made by the applicant in the case of All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association (supra) to state that pension is not a charity or bounty or is it gratuitous payment solely dependent on the whim and sweet will of the employer, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondents that statements and averments of the applicant are very important to verify with railway records to ensure the correctness of the claim but at this distance place of time, i.e. after 33 years it is not possible to the Railways to verify the same.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tushar Ranjan Mohanty S/O Shri Rabi ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 5 September, 2007

In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Association v. Union of India 1992 Supp (1) SCC 664 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 517 : (1992) 19 ATC 856 a Bench of this Court distinguished the judgment in Nakara, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 and pointed out that it is for the Government to fix a cut-off date in the case of introducing a new pension scheme. The Court negatived the claim of the persons who had retired prior to the cut-off date and had collected their retiral benefits from the employer.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 38 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dr E Rajeswar Rao vs M/O Defence on 17 July, 2019

In this connection, the ratios in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, Indian Ex- Services League v. Union of India, State Government Pensioners' Association v. State of A.P., and All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Association v. Union of India are apt In all these cases, the prescription of a cut-off date for implementation of such benefits was held not to be arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

H.A. Vaishnav And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 April, 2000

In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Association v. Union of India when the validity of the introduction of pension scheme in lieu of contributory provident fund scheme was challenged on the ground that bank employees who retired prior to 1.1.86 have not been given the benefit of the said scheme, it was held by this Court that there is no arbitrariness in the same." (Emphasis supplied)
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Yoginder Lall Sharma S/O Shri S.N. ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 16 November, 2006

31. If the above is read with the decision in the case of All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association (supra), it would reveal that the above order was only deemed to have been an extension of an already existing scheme. In that case the Apex court has held, 'It is not a new retrial benefit. It is an upward revision of an existing benefit'. In any event, the applicants in the instant case do not claim the benefit of the circular of 25-11-1992. Thus, Full Bench judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sh. Amar Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 April, 2013

25. To sum up, the concept of pension has been considered by the Honble Apex Court time and again and in catena of cases, it has been observed that the pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering a long and satisfactory service. It is in the nature of deferred payment for past service. It is a social security plan consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the constitution when the employer is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution rendering social justice to a superannuated government servant. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied (See: A.P.Srivastava vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 227, Vasant Gangaramsa Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 10 SCC 148, Subrata Sen v. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 71, Union of India v. P.D.Yadav, (2002) 1 SCC 405), Grid Corporation of Orissa v. Rasananda Das (2003) 10 SCC 297, All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 664).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next