Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 48 (2.61 seconds)
Documents citing Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 15 July, 1996

Dr Neelam Aggarwal vs Pg Institute Of Medical Education And ... on 13 March, 2018

-15- O.A.No. 060/00105/2018 "There is another aspect of the matter. Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vansant Gangaramsa Chandan v. State of Maharashtra, 1996(4) SCT 403: JT 1996 (Supp.) SC 544, has considered clause 23 of Chapter VI of a Pension Scheme of the Hyderabad Agricultural Committee, which is as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Patel Amrutlal Ravabhai vs Gujarat Water Supply Sewarage Board on 11 February, 2020

49. To sum up, we state that the concept of pension has been considered by this court time and again and in catena of cases, it has been observed that the Pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering a long and satisfactory service. It is in the nature of deferred payment for past services. It is a social security plan consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution rendering social justice to a superannuated government servant. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied. [see A.P. Srivastava v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 227, Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 10 SCC 148, Subrata Sen v. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 71, Union of India v. P.D. Yadav, (2002) 1 SCC 405, Grid Corpn. of Orissa v. Rasananda Das, (2003) 10 SCC 297, All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Assn. v. Union of India (Supra)].
Gujarat High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Roop Lal vs State Of H.P. & Others on 11 October, 2023

"To sum up, we state that the concept of pension has been considered by this Court time and again and in a catena of cases it has been observed that the pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering a long and satisfactory service. It is in the nature of deferred payment for the past services. It is a social security plan consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution rendering social justice to a ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2023 20:36:37 :::CIS 8 superannuated government servant. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied. (See A.P. Srivastava v. Union of India, Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan v. State of Maharashtra, Subrata Sen v. Union of India, Union of India v. P.D. Yadav, Grid Corpn. of Orissa v. Rasananda Das and All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Assn. v. Union of India.)"
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 8 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Pepsu Road Transport Corp., Patiala vs Mangal Singh & Ors on 12 May, 2011

36) To sum up, we state that the concept of pension has been considered by this court time and again and in catena of cases, it has been observed that the Pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering a long and satisfactory service. It is in the nature of deferred payment for past services. It is a social security plan consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the Constitution when the 33 employer is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution rendering social justice to a superannuated government servant. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied. [see A.P. Srivastava v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 227, Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 10 SCC 148, Subrata Sen v. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 71, Union of India v. P.D. Yadav, (2002) 1 SCC 405, Grid Corpn. of Orissa v. Rasananda Das, (2003) 10 SCC 297, All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Assn. v. Union of India (Supra)].
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 94 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Sh. Amar Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 April, 2013

25. To sum up, the concept of pension has been considered by the Honble Apex Court time and again and in catena of cases, it has been observed that the pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering a long and satisfactory service. It is in the nature of deferred payment for past service. It is a social security plan consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the constitution when the employer is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution rendering social justice to a superannuated government servant. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied (See: A.P.Srivastava vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 227, Vasant Gangaramsa Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 10 SCC 148, Subrata Sen v. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 71, Union of India v. P.D.Yadav, (2002) 1 SCC 405), Grid Corporation of Orissa v. Rasananda Das (2003) 10 SCC 297, All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 664).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next