Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 296 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Ors vs Rakesh Kumar on 30 March, 2001

No.66187149 Ex-Hc Karan Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 May, 2008

It is also submitted that in view of judgment in case of Rakesh Kumar's case (supra) rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it has been held that there is no 8 entitlement of pensionary benefits in view of Rule 19 of the BSF Rules and in subsequent judgment in Raj Kumar's case (supra), a sympathetic view was taken for those pensioners who were drawing pension. Admittedly, the petitioner was not getting any pension and his case was pending for want of final sanction.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - G K Vyas - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Madhu E.V. & Anr on 26 April, 2012

In view of the decisions of this Court in Union of India & Others Vs. Rakesh Kumar (supra) and Raj Kumar & Others Vs. Union of India and Another (supra), the legal position that emerges is this : Rule 19 of the BSF Rules does not entitle any pensionary benefits on resignation of its personnel. The pensionary benefits are not ordinarily available on resignation under CCS (Pension) Rules since Rule 26 provides for forfeiture of service on resignation. However, by virtue of G.O. dated December 27, 1995 read with Rule 19 of BSF Rules, the member of BSF would be entitled to get pensionary benefits if he is otherwise eligible. Such personnel must, therefore, satisfy his eligibility under CCS (Pension) Rules. The CCS (Pension) Rules do not provide that a person who has resigned before completing 20 years of service is entitled to the pensionary benefits. Rule 49 only prescribes the procedure for calculation and quantification of pension amount and not the minimum qualifying service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 24 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Lance Naik Banwari Lal vs Uoi And Ors on 23 December, 2010

barred or physically or medically unfit or for any other reason including their inability to return the amount of GPF, pension drawn or other dues, there shall be no question of continuing payment of pension which shall be liable to cease as a result of the decision in Rakesh Kumar (supra). We are however of the view that equity demands that in such cases there shall be no recovery of the pension amounts already paid to them."
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - G Mittal - Full Document

Ex.S.I. D.M. Rai vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 October, 2010

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Examination of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India (supra) and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rakesh Kumar (supra) would show that the issue raised before the Supreme Court related to interpretation of Rule 19 of the BSF Rules and permissibility of resignation from service with this force. The court was required to consider the provisions under which pension to BSF personnel is granted. In this behalf, after a detailed analysis of the provisions of the BSF Act & BSF Rules, the Supreme Court had concluded that entitlement to pension of BSF personnel did not arise on account of Rule 19 of the BSF Rules but only under the provisions of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (`CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 hereafter. Therefore, the question which has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner has to be examined as against the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - G Mittal - Full Document

Smt. Normi Topno vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 11 October, 2007

Now the next questions arises as to how such recovery can be made from the retiral benefits; who can recover the amount; through which procedure recovery can be made and the limitation, if any, to recover such amount. [para 9] This issue has not been determined either by this Court in the case of Smt. Girish Kumari Prasad (supra) nor by the Supreme Court in the case Page 0297 of Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar (supra) or the cases, as referred by the parties. [para 10] ...The State can recover the amount by way of filing a suit before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction or in appropriate case, may file certificate case but in both cases, law of limitation being applicable, it is not open to the State to recover any amount at anytime from pension or gratuity in the name of adjustment, that too without giving opportunity to the retired employee. Before recovery or adjustment of any amount from the pension or gratuity in the case of mistaken calculation or payment in excess, the retired employee should be given an opportunity of hearing to state as to why the amount be not recovered/ adjusted from his pension/gratuity and it will be open to the retired employee to show that such recovery or adjustment is uncalled for or is barred by limitation....[para 13] ...if a person by misrepresentation or duping the State Government draws excess amount of salary or order benefit, such action being misconduct, after retirement it can be recovered only under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules 1950. If charge is not framed while employee is in service, after retirement it is only the State Government, empowered to do so and not any other officer and there is a limitation of four years, prescribed under the Rule.... [para 15] In these type of cases when excess payment is made to a Government employee by mistake and such mistake is committed by some other person, one cannot ignore Rule 43(b) in such cases. It is not that only in the case of misconduct Rule 43(b) can be invoked but it can also be invoked against an employee, if there is a pecuniary loss, caused to the Government due to negligence of the employee. That means the employee due to whose negligence such amount was paid to another employee and such negligence caused pecuniary loss to the State Government, then why the State Government will not recover the amount by invoking the provisions of Rule 43(b) against the person, due to whose negligence pecuniary loss was caused to the State Government....[para 16]
Jharkhand High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 46 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next