Search Results Page

Search Results

71 - 80 of 18809 (1.42 seconds)
Documents citing D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982

Ram Chander Sharma And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 19 July, 2024

47. Learned State counsel has further argued that in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2012 titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees Union, decided on 50 of 69 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 15:22:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:090987-FB CWP-17310-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases 51 22.02.2021, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in D.S. Nakara (supra) has been interpreted to be mean that the pensioners and the employees in service do not constitute a homogeneous class and the benefit can be granted to the employees within service keeping in view the financial capacity of the State and no grievance can be raised by the employees who have already retired from service.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Surinder Pal Singh Chauhan vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 July, 2024

47. Learned State counsel has further argued that in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2012 titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees Union, decided on 50 of 69 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 15:21:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:090987-FB CWP-17310-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases 51 22.02.2021, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in D.S. Nakara (supra) has been interpreted to be mean that the pensioners and the employees in service do not constitute a homogeneous class and the benefit can be granted to the employees within service keeping in view the financial capacity of the State and no grievance can be raised by the employees who have already retired from service.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Raghbir Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 19 July, 2024

47. Learned State counsel has further argued that in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2012 titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees Union, decided on 50 of 69 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 15:24:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:090987-FB CWP-17310-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases 51 22.02.2021, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in D.S. Nakara (supra) has been interpreted to be mean that the pensioners and the employees in service do not constitute a homogeneous class and the benefit can be granted to the employees within service keeping in view the financial capacity of the State and no grievance can be raised by the employees who have already retired from service.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Charat Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 July, 2024

"29. D.S. Nakara (supra), which is the mainstay of the case of the employees, arose under special circumstances, quite different from the present case. It was a case of revision of pensionary benefits and classification of pensioners into two groups by drawing a cut-off line and granting the revised pensionary benefits 56 of 69 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 15:25:24 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:090987-FB CWP-17310-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases 57 to employees retiring on or after the cut-off date. The criterion made applicable was "being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date". This Court held that for being eligible for liberalised pension scheme, application of such a criterion is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it was both arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The reason given by the Court was that the employees who retired prior to a specified date, and those who retired thereafter formed one class of pensioners. The attempt to classify them into separate classes/groups for the purpose of pensionary benefits was not founded on any intelligible differentia, which had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Jagdish Chander And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 19 July, 2024

47. Learned State counsel has further argued that in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2012 titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees Union, decided on 50 of 69 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 15:33:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:090987-FB CWP-17310-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases 51 22.02.2021, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in D.S. Nakara (supra) has been interpreted to be mean that the pensioners and the employees in service do not constitute a homogeneous class and the benefit can be granted to the employees within service keeping in view the financial capacity of the State and no grievance can be raised by the employees who have already retired from service.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Parkash Vir Dalal vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 19 July, 2024

"29. D.S. Nakara (supra), which is the mainstay of the case of the employees, arose under special circumstances, quite different from the present case. It was a case of revision of pensionary benefits and classification of pensioners into two groups by drawing a cut-off line and granting the revised pensionary benefits 56 of 69 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 15:36:07 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:090987-FB CWP-17310-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases 57 to employees retiring on or after the cut-off date. The criterion made applicable was "being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date". This Court held that for being eligible for liberalised pension scheme, application of such a criterion is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it was both arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The reason given by the Court was that the employees who retired prior to a specified date, and those who retired thereafter formed one class of pensioners. The attempt to classify them into separate classes/groups for the purpose of pensionary benefits was not founded on any intelligible differentia, which had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Shamsher Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 19 July, 2024

47. Learned State counsel has further argued that in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2012 titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees Union, decided on 50 of 69 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 15:39:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:090987 CWP-17310-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases 51 22.02.2021, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in D.S. Nakara (supra) has been interpreted to be mean that the pensioners and the employees in service do not constitute a homogeneous class and the benefit can be granted to the employees within service keeping in view the financial capacity of the State and no grievance can be raised by the employees who have already retired from service.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Ram Chander & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 19 July, 2024

47. Learned State counsel has further argued that in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2012 titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees Union, decided on 50 of 69 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 15:41:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:090987-FB CWP-17310-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases 51 22.02.2021, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in D.S. Nakara (supra) has been interpreted to be mean that the pensioners and the employees in service do not constitute a homogeneous class and the benefit can be granted to the employees within service keeping in view the financial capacity of the State and no grievance can be raised by the employees who have already retired from service.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Chander Singh Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 19 July, 2024

47. Learned State counsel has further argued that in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2012 titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees Union, decided on 50 of 69 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 15:52:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:090987-FB CWP-17310-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases 51 22.02.2021, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in D.S. Nakara (supra) has been interpreted to be mean that the pensioners and the employees in service do not constitute a homogeneous class and the benefit can be granted to the employees within service keeping in view the financial capacity of the State and no grievance can be raised by the employees who have already retired from service.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Suresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 July, 2024

"29. D.S. Nakara (supra), which is the mainstay of the case of the employees, arose under special circumstances, quite different from the present case. It was a case of revision of pensionary benefits and classification of pensioners into two groups by drawing a cut-off line and granting the revised pensionary benefits 56 of 69 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2024 15:53:37 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:090987-FB CWP-17310-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases 57 to employees retiring on or after the cut-off date. The criterion made applicable was "being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date". This Court held that for being eligible for liberalised pension scheme, application of such a criterion is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it was both arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The reason given by the Court was that the employees who retired prior to a specified date, and those who retired thereafter formed one class of pensioners. The attempt to classify them into separate classes/groups for the purpose of pensionary benefits was not founded on any intelligible differentia, which had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document
Previous   4 5 6 7 8   9 10 11 12 13 Next