Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 180 (4.67 seconds)
Documents citing D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982

K.Balasundaram vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 September, 2017

That is the combined effect of the staff circular No. 18 dated 8.4.1974 read with the Pension Fund Rules referred to supra. The reason for prescribing the maximum age limit of 35 or 38, as the case may be, for the purpose of induction into pension fund appears to be that the employee would be able to render minimum service of 20 years as contemplated by Rule 22 of the Pension Fund Rules. However, there does not appear to be any rationale or discernible basis for fixing the cutoff date as 1.1.1965, notwithstanding their earlier confirmation in Bank service. True, a new benefit has been conferred on the ex-servicemen and therefore a cutoff date could be fixed for extending this new benefit, without offending the ratio of the decision in D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India [AIR 1983 SC 130]; but, there could be no arbitrariness or irrationality in fixing such date. Minimum qualifying service being the essential consideration, even according to the Bank, there is no reason why the ex-servicemen like the respondents, who from the date of their confirmation had put in more than twenty years of service, even taking the retirement age as 58, should be excluded. No reason is forthcoming in the counter-affidavit filed by the Bank for choosing the said date. When it is decided to extend the pensionary benefits to ex-servicemen drawing pension, the denial of the benefit to some of the serving employees should be based on rational and intelligible criterion. In substance, that is the view taken by the High Court and we see no reason to differ with that view. 
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

V.Rajendran vs Union Of India [Air 1983 Sc 130]; But on 26 July, 2017

That is the combined effect of the staff circular No. 18 dated 8.4.1974 read with the Pension Fund Rules referred to supra. The reason for prescribing the maximum age limit of 35 or 38, as the case may be, for the purpose of induction into pension fund appears to be that the employee would be able to render minimum service of 20 years as contemplated by Rule 22 of the Pension Fund Rules. However, there does not appear to be any rationale or discernible basis for fixing the cutoff date as 1.1.1965, notwithstanding their earlier confirmation in Bank service. True, a new benefit has been conferred on the ex-servicemen and therefore a cutoff date could be fixed for extending this new benefit, without offending the ratio of the decision in D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India [AIR 1983 SC 130]; but, there could be no arbitrariness or irrationality in fixing such date. Minimum qualifying service being the essential consideration, even according to the Bank, there is no reason why the ex-servicemen like the respondents, who from the date of their confirmation had put in more than twenty years of service, even taking the retirement age as 58, should be excluded. No reason is forthcoming in the counter-affidavit filed by the Bank for choosing the said date. When it is decided to extend the pensionary benefits to ex-servicemen drawing pension, the denial of the benefit to some of the serving employees should be based on rational and intelligible criterion. In substance, that is the view taken by the High Court and we see no reason to differ with that view. 
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

V.Sankaran vs ) The Principal Secretary on 13 October, 2017

That is the combined effect of the staff circular No. 18 dated 8.4.1974 read with the Pension Fund Rules referred to supra. The reason for prescribing the maximum age limit of 35 or 38, as the case may be, for the purpose of induction into pension fund appears to be that the employee would be able to render minimum service of 20 years as contemplated by Rule 22 of the Pension Fund Rules. However, there does not appear to be any rationale or discernible basis for fixing the cutoff date as 1.1.1965, notwithstanding their earlier confirmation in Bank service. True, a new benefit has been conferred on the ex-servicemen and therefore a cutoff date could be fixed for extending this new benefit, without offending the ratio of the decision in D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India [AIR 1983 SC 130]; but, there could be no arbitrariness or irrationality in fixing such date. Minimum qualifying service being the essential consideration, even according to the Bank, there is no reason why the ex-servicemen like the respondents, who from the date of their confirmation had put in more than twenty years of service, even taking the retirement age as 58, should be excluded. No reason is forthcoming in the counter-affidavit filed by the Bank for choosing the said date. When it is decided to extend the pensionary benefits to ex-servicemen drawing pension, the denial of the benefit to some of the serving employees should be based on rational and intelligible criterion. In substance, that is the view taken by the High Court and we see no reason to differ with that view. 
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Nirmal Ujwal Credit Chsl Nagpur (Multi ... vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 6 December, 2017

138. We are in agreement with the submission of Dr. Tulzapurkar. A Member of Indian Legal Service, who has held the post of Additional Secretary of that service or any equivalent post is neither a retired Judge nor qualified to be appointed as a Judge. He can never fall within a definition of "Judicial Member". Section 46(1)(b) being contrary to the express mandate of Section 45 of the RERA is, therefore, bad in law. It is well settled that a Court can sever an unconstitutional provision from an ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:29:00 ::: 202 os-wp-2737-17 & ors-RERA-JT.doc otherwise constitutional measure (D. S. Nakara vs. Union of India - (1983) 1 SCC 305 - para 60. We, therefore, hold that expression of the definition relating to member of Indian Legal Service could be severed and be declared as unconstitutional and be struck down accordingly.
Bombay High Court Cites 292 - Cited by 0 - N H Patil - Full Document

Mudassar Builders And Developers vs Union Of India And 2 Ors on 6 December, 2017

138. We are in agreement with the submission of Dr. Tulzapurkar. A Member of Indian Legal Service, who has held the post of Additional Secretary of that service or any equivalent post is neither a retired Judge nor qualified to be appointed as a Judge. He can never fall within a definition of "Judicial Member". Section 46(1)(b) being contrary to the express mandate of Section 45 of the RERA is, therefore, bad in law. It is well settled that a Court can sever an unconstitutional provision from an ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:30:16 ::: 202 os-wp-2737-17 & ors-RERA-JT.doc otherwise constitutional measure (D. S. Nakara vs. Union of India - (1983) 1 SCC 305 - para 60. We, therefore, hold that expression of the definition relating to member of Indian Legal Service could be severed and be declared as unconstitutional and be struck down accordingly.
Bombay High Court Cites 292 - Cited by 0 - N H Patil - Full Document

Real Gem Buildtech Private Limited And ... vs Union Of India And 2 Ors on 6 December, 2017

138. We are in agreement with the submission of Dr. Tulzapurkar. A Member of Indian Legal Service, who has held the post of Additional Secretary of that service or any equivalent post is neither a retired Judge nor qualified to be appointed as a Judge. He can never fall within a definition of "Judicial Member". Section 46(1)(b) being contrary to the express mandate of Section 45 of the RERA is, therefore, bad in law. It is well settled that a Court can sever an unconstitutional provision from an ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:27:51 ::: 202 os-wp-2737-17 & ors-RERA-JT.doc otherwise constitutional measure (D. S. Nakara vs. Union of India - (1983) 1 SCC 305 - para 60. We, therefore, hold that expression of the definition relating to member of Indian Legal Service could be severed and be declared as unconstitutional and be struck down accordingly.
Bombay High Court Cites 292 - Cited by 0 - N H Patil - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next