Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 59 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing V. Sukumaran vs State Of Kerala . on 26 August, 2020

Dr. Parvathi Venkatesh vs State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 10 January, 2022

48. The Supreme Court in case of V. Sukumaran (supra) has held that the pension is succour for post-retirement period. It is not a bounty payable at will, but a social welfare measure as a post-retirement entitlement to maintain the dignity of the employee. It is further held that the pensionary provisions must be given a liberal construction as a social welfare measure. This does not imply that something can be given contrary to Rules, but the very basis for grant of such pension must be kept in mind i.e. to facilitate a retired government employee to live with dignity in his winter of life and, thus, such benefit should not be unreasonably denied to an employee, more so on technicalities. In our view the genuine claim of the petitioner for compensation pension for the services rendered for more than 30 years is rejected purely on technical ground so as to deprive the petitioner of her legitimate claim which is not a bounty payable on the sweet will of the employer. The petitioner having satisfied the criteria for claiming the pension is entitled to receive such pension as a matter of right which cannot bdp 27 wp-691.21.doc be deprived of by the State Government.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

The State Of Bihar vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 6 April, 2022

20. Emphasizingly, the Hon'ble Supreme has held that pensionary provisions must be given liberal construction more so as a social welfare measure. It is not a bounty to be dispersed contrary to the rules, but very basis for grant of such pension is to facilitate a retired government employee, live with dignity, in the winter of his life. This fundamental principle must be kept in mind while taking action, depriving benefits which ought not to be done, unreasonably, more so, on technicalities. [V. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala, (2020) 8 SCC 106; State of W.B. v. Haresh C. Banerjee and others, (2006) 7 SCC 651]
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - S Karol - Full Document

Lilawati Mishra vs The State Of Bihar on 11 May, 2022

39. Emphasizingly, the Hon'ble Supreme has held that Patna High Court CWJC No.6852 of 2021 dt.11-05-2022 17/38 pensionary provisions must be given liberal construction more so as a social welfare measure. It is not a bounty to be dispersed contrary to the rules, but very basis for grant of such pension is to facilitate a retired government employee, live with dignity, in the winter of his life. This fundamental principle must be kept in mind while taking action, depriving benefits which ought not to be done, unreasonably, more so, on technicalities. [V. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala, (2020) 8 SCC 106; State of W.B. v. Haresh C. Banerjee and others, (2006) 7 SCC 651]
Patna High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 25 - S Karol - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Virendra Kumar on 25 November, 2022

Considering this situation, this Court by an interim order passed in Preetam Singh’s case1 had directed that even if employees have taken benefit of the old pension scheme by giving an undertaking, they will be entitled to the benefit of the new pension scheme in terms of the notification dated 19th May 2009. The learned counsel invited our attention to the subsequent order dated 5th May 2015 passed by the State Government by which the benefit of the new pension scheme was denied to those who opted to join the employment of the Board on or after 1st April 2005. His submission is that this direction is discriminatory which creates two classes of pensioners without any rational basis. He relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India 2 as well as another decision in the case of V. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala & Anr. 3. 2 1983 (1) SCC 305 3 2020 (8) SCC 106 21 C.A.Nos.6622-6623 of 2022 etc. He would, therefore, submit that reconsideration of the view taken in Preetam Singh’s case1 is not at all warranted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 12 - A Oka - Full Document

Kapil Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2022

20. Emphasizingly, the Hon'ble Supreme has held that pensionary provisions must be given liberal construction more so as a social welfare measure. It is not a bounty to be dispersed contrary to the rules, but very basis for grant of such pension is to facilitate a retired government employee, live with dignity, in the winter of his life. This fundamental principle must be kept in mind while taking action, depriving benefits which ought not to be done, unreasonably, more so, on technicalities. [V. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala, (2020) 8 SCC 106; State of W.B. v. Haresh C. Banerjee and others, (2006) 7 SCC 651]
Patna High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - H Kumar - Full Document

The District Manager, Bihar State Food ... vs Anuradha Devi And Ors on 1 February, 2022

7. Emphasizingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that pensionary provisions must be given liberal construction more so as a social welfare measure. It is not a bounty to be dispersed contrary to the rules, but very basis for grant of such pension is to facilitate a retired government employee, live with dignity, in the winter of his life. This fundamental principle must be kept in mind while taking action, depriving benefits which ought not to be done, unreasonably, more so, on technicalities. [V. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala, (2020) 8 SCC 106; State of W.B. v. Haresh C. Banerjee and others, (2006) 7 SCC 651]
Patna High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 103 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next