Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Raghbar Dass Hukam Chand vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 May, 2009

M/S Dlf Ltd vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 20 February, 2023

In view of the above and following the dictum laid down in Raghbar Dass Hukam Chand (Supra) we find that the impugned order passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal dated 01.07.2005 (Annexure A-7) cannot sustain. The appellant-company consequently would be entitled to the refund in the light of the assessment order dated 11.02.2003 (Annexure A-1) pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - T S Dhindsa - Full Document

Chander Parkash vs State Of Haryana & Others on 18 November, 2013

"5. I have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the records and I am of the view that if a particular matter is specifically dealt with in a separate rule, it is that rule which will apply and would preclude the applicability of a general rule. If an employee was to get pension only after serving ten years, then in that case whatever might have been the circumstances of his retirement, he would have been entitled to pension. An employee could retire after ten years of service on the ground that he had become physically unfit to serve. There was absolutely no necessity to frame a separate rule dealing with the retirement of an employee when he was to become physically unfit to hold the post."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Vikram Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 January, 2015

"The petitioner's claim for pensionary ANJU 2015.02.09 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-4338-1997(O&M) -5- benefits has been declined on the premises that he has rendered less than 10 years of qualifying service and as such is not entitled to pensionary benefits. The question, as to whether, the employee who has been retired on medical grounds prior to having rendered 10 years qualifying service was entitled to pensionary benefits came up for consideration in Raghbir Chand V. State of Haryana, 1997(1) S.C.T. 503. While examining the provision of Rule 5.11 extracted above, this court concluded that the aforesaid rule specifically dealt with retirement based on bodily or mental infirmity leading to incapacity for service. Whereas the general rule for grant of pension related to retirement on attaining the age of superannuation wherein 10 years of qualifying service is a precondition for the grant of pensionary benefits. In the aforesaid case, it has been held that the general rule would have no applicability for the grant of pension as a consequence of retirement under Rule 5.11. In other words, invalid pension stipulated for retirement on account of bodily or mental infirmity leading to incapacity for service does not require 10 years of qualifying service for purposes of earning pensionary benefits. We duly affirm the aforesaid legal position."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R S Malik - Full Document

(O&M)Badlu Ram vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 December, 2025

15. The judgment passed by this Court in Raghbir Chand's case (supra) was thereafter, upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Parvesh Devi Vs. State of Haryana & others 2007 (1) S.C.T. 609 and reference was also made to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, the 'Disability Act'). In that case, there was no order of retirement and the petitioner was lying in coma being 100% incapacitated due to the head injury suffered by him. This Court, keeping in view the provisions of the Disability Act, apart from granting pension, also directed that the petitioner would be entitled for salary till his date of superannuation alongwith interest @ 8%. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S P Sharma - Full Document

Jai Bharat Gum & Chemicals Ltd vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2010

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that irrespective of merits of the case, the refund has to follow order of the appellate authority and in proceedings for determining refund, only question was of quantification of refund. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court dated 7.5.2009 in C.W.P. No.19941 of 2005 M/s Raghbar Dass Hukam Chand v. State of Haryana and others, taking view to this effect. Relevant observations are:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A K Goel - Full Document
1