Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 578 (1.58 seconds)
Documents citing D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982

Bhuban Mohan Dash vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opp. Parties on 29 November, 2023

"46. Paragraph 2.3 of the resolution is regarding pensionary benefits. It is indicated that pensionary and other retirement benefits admissible to State Government servants shall be admissible to such employees for the period of their service under Government with effect from 7-6-1994. The remaining aided service shall be governed by the Orissa Aided Educational Institution Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division or retirement pre and post a certain date? The Supreme Court has considered these questions in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130.
Orissa High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

Bidyadhar Bhuyan vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 14 November, 1995

46. Paragraph 2.3 of the resolution is regarding pensionary benefits. It is indicated that pensionary and other retirement benefits admissible to State Government servants shall be admissible to such employees for the period of their service under Government with effect from 7-6-1994. The remaining aided service shall be governed by the Orissa Aided Educational Institution Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division or retirement pre and post a certain date? The Supreme Court has considered these questions in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130.
Orissa High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Gagan Bihari Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 23 February, 2026

30. However, before we give such directions we must also observe that the submissions advanced on behalf of the Union of India cannot be accepted in view of the decision in D.S. Nakara case [(1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] . The object sought to be achieved was not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all persons of the same class equally. To hold otherwise would cause violence to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. It could not also have been the intention of the authorities to equate the pension payable to officers of two different ranks by resorting to the step-up principle envisaged in the fundamental rules in a manner where the other officers belonging to the same cadre would be receiving a higher pension.
Orissa High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - B P Satapathy - Full Document

Pradipta Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 29 October, 2025

iii) The stand of the opposite parties that the petitioner did not come forward despite issuance of notices several times, with evidentiary material to vouch his stand that the documents are not spurious and therefore, the terminal benefits have not been given to him is very difficult to countenance. As already mentioned, in January, 1989, he was given initial appointment; in 2021, he was given promotion with retrospective effect from 2019 as a Reader. Thereafter, he retired in February, 2023 on attaining the age of superannuation. The contention that petitioner did not come- forward with the required documents would not come to the rescue of opposite parties, who could by all means have held an ex parte inquiry, if they wanted. There is no justification whatsoever for holding any inquiry when already on this side and on the criminal side, matter having been investigated into all allegations were found false and a clean chit is issued to the petitioner. In that fact matrix, no purpose would be served by keeping the contemplated inquiry pending against the petitioner in eternity. iv. Counsel for the petitioner is more than justified in submitting that pension is no longer a bounty after the decision of the Apex Court in Deokinanda Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330 followed by D.S. Nakara V. Union of India, AIR 1983 130 withholding of pension is also in a way offensive to Article 300-A Page 6 of 8 jurisprudence in the light of K.T. Plantation Pvt. Limited v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1. The money payable to retired employee is his property and therefore, withholding it indefinitely amounts to its acquisition, at least temporarily. Such an act on the part of opposite parties would put the retired employees to untold hardship in difficult days like this when bread is costlier than blood. How a retired employee would be able to hold his body & soul together without any life support, needs to be imagined.
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

All Odisha Govt. I.T.I vs Director General Of ..... Opp. Parties on 12 November, 2021

They are being continued in service without payment of due salary for which they are entitled on the basis of Article 14, 16 read with Article 34 (1)(d) of the Constitution of India as if they have no constitutional protection as envisaged in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 from cradle to grave. In heydays of life they are serving on exploitative terms with no guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in old age they are going to be destituted, there being no provision for pension, retiral benefits etc. There is clear contravention of constitutional provisions and aspiration of down trodden class. They do have equal rights and to make them equals they require protection and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of treatment meted out is not only bad but equally unconstitutional and is denial of rights.
Orissa High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

Sarat Chandra Nayak vs Registrar on 25 April, 2023

9. When a cut-off date is fixed by the concerned authority, the Court is required to keep in mind that such a date must have been fixed by the authority after considering various aspects of the case and, therefore, there is very limited scope of judicial interference in such matters. This issue has been examined and considered by the Supreme Court time and again in a large number of cases, some of which are Jaila Singh v. State of // 13 // Rajasthan, AIR 1975 SC 1436; D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130; Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1985 SC 1367; U.P.M.T.S.N.A. Samiti, Varanasi v. State of Uttar Pradesh,1987 (2) SCC 453 : AIR 1987 SC 1772; Krishna Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1782; State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Pensioner Samaj, AIR 1991 SC 1743; All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 767; T.S. Thiruvengadam v. Secretary to the Government of India, (1993) 2 SCC 174; Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 2750; M. C. Dhingra v. Union of India, (1996) 7 SCC 564 : AIR 1996 SC 2963; University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary, (1996) 10 SCC 536; State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal Gandhi, AIR 1997 SC 782; and many others.
Orissa High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

Baijayanti Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ... on 19 October, 2023

On the question of discrimination, learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara and others V. Union of India, AIR 1983 S.C 130 and State of Orissa & Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 436. In the Constitution Bench decision, in the case Page 10 of 24 // 11 // of D.S. Nakara, Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph Nos.6 & 7 has held as follows:
Orissa High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - B P Satapathy - Full Document

Pratap Kishore Misra vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 21 August, 1987

No objection is available to be raised after the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in AIR 1983 SC 130 (D.S. Nakara v. Union of India) wherein an objection raised as to the maintainability of a petition at the instance of a co-operative society formed for ventilating public grievances and espousing the cause of some retired pensioners was negatived. Dealing with the question, the Court held as follows : --
Orissa High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - G B Patnaik - Full Document

Samser Khan And Another vs The Commandant Two Hundred Two Bn Cobra ... on 27 April, 2016

We are not concerned with the Rules so far as children are concerned, as the deceased died issueless. From the aforesaid Rule, it is clear that neither the petitioners nor the Opp. Parties 5 to 8 come within the definition of 'family' in Rule- 54 (14) of the CCS Pension Rules. As held by this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra), the pension is to be governed by the relevant rules and that is a statutory right.
Orissa High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - C R Dash - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next