Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 60 (3.98 seconds)
Documents citing D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982

Dr. Pardaman Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 January, 2010

15. As noticed earlier, the learned Judges even after noticing that the ratio in the judgment of this Court in Nakara case cannot be pressed into service, erroneously granted relief on the alleged delay on the part of the appellant-Electricity Board in introducing the pension scheme which certainly cannot be a ground for the Court to give retrospective effect to the pension scheme. Moreover, the appellant-Board had given well-founded reasons for introducing the pension scheme from 1-7-1986 including financial constraints, a valid ground. We are of the view that the retired employees (respondents), who had retired from service CWP No. 5770 of 1999 -15- before 1-7-1986 and those who were in employment on the said date, cannot be treated alike as they do not belong to one class. The workmen, who had retired after receiving all the benefits available under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, cease to be employees of the appellant-Board w.e.f. the date of their retirement. They form a separate class.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.P.Parthasarathy vs The Chairman on 8 June, 2010

13.Therefore, in the present case, in the absence of any regulation in favour of the petitioners, they cannot seek for direction from this Court to the Government of India to accept the amendment proposed by the SBI. In fact, in the earlier set of writ petitions, this court had given a direction to consider the case. But, in the present case, seeking for positive direction on the basis of an alleged right glowing from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and also on the basis of the Nakara's case cannot be countenanced especially in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Ex-Services League case (cited supra).
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

Central Bank Retirees??? Association & ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 25 October, 2010

8. Ms. Meera Mathur also submitted that as the impugned scheme introduced by the respondents was a new scheme and not a liberalisation of the old scheme, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. (supra) would not be applicable in the present case. She lastly submitted that the issue raised in the present petition was no longer res integra in view of the validity of the cut off date of 1st January, 1986 having already been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of a similar bank.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Manmohan - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Arasu Pokkuvarathu vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 7 September, 2010

(Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh and D.S. Nakara v. Union of India.) Where the Government servant rendered service, to compensate which a family pension scheme is devised, the widow and the dependent minors would equally be entitled to family pension as a matter of right. In fact we look upon pension not merely as a statutory right but as the fulfilment of a constitutional promise inasmuch as it partakes the character of public assistance in cases of unemployment, old-age, disablement or similar other cases of undeserved want. Relevant rules merely make effective the constitutional mandate. That is how pension has been looked upon in D.S. Nakara judgment. At the hearing of this group of matters we pointed out that since the family pension scheme has become non-contributory effective from September 22, 1977 any attempt at denying its benefit to widows and dependents of Government servants who had not taken advantage of the 1964 liberalisation scheme by making or agreeing to make necessary contribution would be denial of equality to persons similarly situated and hence violative of Article 14. If widows and dependents of deceased Government servants since after September 22, 1977 would be entitled to benefits of family pension scheme without the obligation of making contribution, those widows who were denied the benefits on the ground that the Government servants having not agreed to make the contribution, could not be differently treated because that would be introducing an invidious classification among those who would be entitled to similar treatment. When this glaring dissimilar treatment emerged in the course of hearing in the Court, Mr B. Dutta learned counsel appearing for the Union of India requested for a short adjournment to take further instructions."
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - N N Vasanthakumar - Full Document

Smt. Latika Singha vs The State Of W. B. & Ors on 20 May, 2010

" This action of the respondent is under challenge in this application. The question which is now agitated before this Court is now fully concluded by the judgment of the Supreme 4 Court in the case of (1) D.S. Nakra V. Union of India reported in AIR SC, 130. The Supreme Court held that the pensioners formed one class and that there is no basis for making classification between the pensioners who had retired before or after a particular date and that the persons who retired earlier were entitled to get the benefit of the Notification under which the pensions have been revised at the enhanced rate. In the result this application is allowed.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - I Banerjee - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next