Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing R. Thangavelu vs The Government Of India Represented By ... on 16 December, 1993

S.M.S. Lakshmi vs The Government Of India, Represented By ... on 24 July, 2006

In and by the order in WP No. 36113 of 2003 dated 29.12.2003, the matter was remanded by this Court to the second respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the decision of the Division Bench reported in (R. Thangavelu v. Government of India and Anr.) 1994 WLR 137 and pass orders within a period of eight weeks. After the said remand, the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence as required in the scheme in respect of the sufferings undergone by her husband. It is also stated that the Central Government scheme for grant of pension to freedom fighters and their dependents is a distinct scheme and has no relation with the freedom fighters pension scheme of Government of Tamil Nadu, hence, the basis for claiming pension that the State Government Pension is received by the petitioner without satisfying the requirements of the Central Government Pension Scheme cannot be accepted.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document

S.N.Mohammed Hanifa vs The Under Secretary To Government on 22 February, 2012

16. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand contends that the law laid down by this court in R. Thangavelu vs. The Government of India and K.S.Velusamy vs. The Govt. of India and another, cannot be said to laying down the correct law, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahender Singh vs Union of India (C.A.No.5215 of 2009 decided on 27.09.2010), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under:
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document

Shoba vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 18 February, 2005

But I would prefer to follow the earlier Bench Decision of the same High Court in R. Thangavelu v. The Government of India, 1994 (1) MLJ 628 and the other Single Bench decision on K.S. Velusamy v. Govt. of India and Anr., as also that of the Karnataka High Court in B.K. Nagaraj v. Union of India and Ors., , which decisions categorically lay down that once the State Government or the Central Government grants pension to a particular freedom fighter he must automatically get the other pension either under the State or under the Central Government Scheme without any further enquiry. A person whom the State Government has accepted as a freedom fighter after making necessary enquiries and granted him the Freedom Fighters' Pension will not become any the less a freedom fighter simply because of some other technical condition in the Central Scheme, once from the documents available it can be reasonably concluded that the person is a freedom fighter. Narayanan, the late father of the petitioner has been accepted as a freedom fighter by the State Government as admitted in their counter-affidavit although they say that the same was on the basis of the decision by the District Advisory Committee. In so far as the Government has accepted the recommendation of the Committee and granted pension to him and on his death to his widow and later to the petitioner they cannot disown the recommendation. As such, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the respondents 1 and 2 should reconsider their decision in the light of the above findings.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - S Jagan - Full Document

V. Ramasamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 October, 2009

9. The Scheme providing pension to the Freedom Fighters and the object behind the same is already considered by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported in AIR 1990 SC 746 (R.Narayanan v. Union of India), 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 (Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India), (2001) 8 SCC 8 (Gurdial Singh V. Union of India) and by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 1994 WLR 137 (R. Thangavelu v. Government of India). In the above Division Bench judgment the State Freedom Fighters Pension Shcme as well Cental Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme were considered in depth and in paragraph 36 it is held thus, "36. It is clear from the Schemes referred to above that the Government wanted to grant pension to the freedom fighters who had suffered imprisonment for liberating our nation from the yokes of foreign rule. The object of the Scheme appears to be that the persons who suffered imprisonment during freedom struggle should not be left to suffer in their old age. This pension is granted to freedom fighters and that class of persons are slowly becoming extinct. Having regard to the above laudable object and purpose behind the scheme it is but necessary that the appropriate Government should adopt a liberal approach in the matter of grant of pension to the real freedom fighters. When we say this, it does not mean that when a person makes a claim under the Scheme for pension, he should be granted the same as a matter of course. No doubt, the applicant should satisfy the conditions stipulated in the Scheme."
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - N N Vasanthakumar - Full Document

Madras City Wine Merchants' Asson. And ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 27 July, 1994

The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, R v. Liverpool Corpn. ex p. Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operator's Association, [1972] 2 QB 299, [1972] 2 All ER 589, CA; A-G of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu, [1983] 2 AC 629, [1983J 2 All ER 346, PC; Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, [1985] AC 374 = [1984] 3 All ER 935, HL; R. v. Home Secretary, ex P. Oloniluyi, [1988] Times, 26 November, CA; R. v. Brent London Borough Council, ex P, Macdonagh, [1989) Times, 22 March.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 293 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next